Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Narayanrao More, a resident of Murtizapur, District Akola, claimed to belong to the Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur' community. He obtained a caste certificate from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akola dated 28.6.2002. The petitioner applied for admission to a health science course and his claim was referred to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Amravati (respondent no.1). The Committee, by order dated 17.7.2003, rejected the petitioner's tribe claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of the Committee's order and directions to hold that he belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner relied on several documents: his own School Leaving Certificate dated 4.7.2001 showing caste 'Thakur', his father Narayan Baliram Thakur's School Leaving Certificate showing 'Thakur' caste, his grandfather Baliram Dagadu Thakur's School Leaving Certificate dated 26.8.1991 showing 'Thakur', his mother Godavari Waman Shinde's School Leaving Certificate dated 10.1.1992 showing 'Thakur', and his maternal grandfather Kisan Wamanrao Shinde's Caste Certificate dated 29.7.1981 indicating 'Thakur'. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court found that the Scrutiny Committee had not properly considered the documentary evidence and had applied incorrect standards. The Court held that the Committee's order was unsustainable and set it aside. The Court directed the Committee to re-verify the petitioner's tribe claim afresh, considering all the documents on record and in accordance with law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Verification of Tribe Claim - Consideration of Documentary Evidence - The Scrutiny Committee must consider all relevant contemporaneous documents such as school leaving certificates and caste certificates of ancestors, and cannot reject a claim solely on the basis of affinity test or lack of physical traits. The Committee's order was set aside for failing to appreciate the documentary evidence on record. (Paras 1-3) B) Scheduled Tribes - Burden of Proof - Standard of Proof - The initial burden of proving tribe claim lies on the claimant, but once sufficient documentary evidence is produced, the Committee must examine it objectively and not impose an impossible burden. The Committee's approach was found to be hyper-technical and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting the petitioner's claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur' community is sustainable in law and fact.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 17.7.2003 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh verification of the petitioner's tribe claim in accordance with law, considering all the documents on record.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in tribe claim verification
- Consideration of contemporaneous documentary evidence
- Application of principles of natural justice
- Relevance of school records and caste certificates of ancestors
