IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4965 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4201 OF 2018 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4203 OF 2018 BOTH IN WRIT PETITION NO.4965 OF 2014 Shri Sagar s/o Ravindra Suryawanshi, Age : 21 years, Occu. Student, R/o Pampa­4, Room No.4, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai – 400 094 PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai­32, through its Secretary 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar, through its Member Secretary 3. The Sub­Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon 4. Agnel Charities' FR.C. Rodrigues Institute of Technology, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, through its Principal 5. Mumbai University, Mumbai, through its Registrar RESPONDENTS ­­­­ Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 ­­­­ 2 wp4965-2014 CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 5th FEBRUARY, 2019 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :   27th FEBRUARY, 2019 JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL K. KOTWAL J.) : Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P., heard finally. 2. By   filing   this   Writ   Petition,   the   petitioner has sought quashment of the order dated 22nd April, 2014, passed   by   the   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate   Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar – respondent No.2 herein, whereby the   tribe   certificate   issued   by   the   Sub   Divisional Officer, Jalgaon in favour of the petitioner, has been invalidated. 3. Shri   A.S.   Golegaonkar,   learned   counsel appearing  for  the  petitioner,  submits  that   though  the school   record   of   the   petitioner,   his   father   namely Ravindra Ganesh Suryawanshi and grandfather Gana Shankar Suryawanshi shows that the petitioner belongs to Thakur Scheduled   Tribe,   the   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate 3 wp4965-2014 Scrutiny   Committee,  Nandurbar  (hereinafter   referred  to as   “Scrutiny   Committee”)   erroneously   invalidated   the tribe   claim   of   the   petitioner.     He   has   drawn   our attention   towards   school   leaving   certificates   of   the petitioner, his father Ravindra Ganesh Suryawanshi and grandfather Gana Suryawanshi. 4. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   also drawn   our   attention   towards   genealogical   tree   of   the petitioner, submitted along with affidavit of Ravindra Ganesh   Suryawanshi   and   submits   that   cousin   of   the petitioner   namely   Dhiraj   Gorakh   Suryawanshi   has   filed affidavit in support of the claim of the petitioner and a copy of his tribe validity certificate issued by the Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate   Scrutiny   Committee,   Nasik Division, Nasik, dated 19th  January, 2005.   He submits that   when   the   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate   of   Dhiraj Gorakh Suryawanshi has been validated by the competent Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar should   have   validated   the   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate issued by the Sub­Divisional Officer, Jalgaon in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   also 4 wp4965-2014 drawn   our   attention   towards   entry   in   the   relevant extract of the death register of village Paldhi (Kh.) in respect   of   the   great   grandfather   of   the   petitioner namely Shankar Maharu, which shows his caste as Thakur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though area restriction was deleted by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled   Tribes   Orders   (Amendment)   Act,   1976,   the Scrutiny   Committee   erroneously   invalidated   the   tribe certificate   of   the   petitioner   on   the   ground   that   his origin is not from the scheduled five districts, which were   specified   in   the   Presidential   Scheduled   Tribe Order, 1956. He submits that recently, the Apex Court in   the   case   of  Jaywant   Dilip   Pawar   Vs. State   of Maharashtra   and   others,   Civil   Appeal   No.2336/2011, decided on  8th  March, 2017, held that the petitioner in such cases has to only establish that he belongs to the community   mentioned   at   Serial   No.   44   of   Part­IX   of Second Schedule of the Act No.108/1976. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in the following cases:­ (i) T. Kocha Vs. State of Kerala and others Civil Appeal No.6126­6127 of 2013, delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 13th April, 2016 (ii) Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra 5 wp4965-2014 and others, Writ Petition No.2152 of 2007, decided by Division Bench of this Court on 26th September, 2017 (iii) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others 2012 (1) SCC 113 (iv) Amruta Vijay More Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2011, decided on 23rd August, 2011 (v) Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Certificate Scrutiny Committee 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 (vi) Jitendra Arun Thakur Vs. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and others, Writ Petition No.6071 of 2015, decided by this Court on 6th December, 2018 (vii) Ku. Ojasvi d/o Mangalsing Mahale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5190/2013, decided by this Court on 28th  September, 2018 (viii) Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and another Vs. State of Kerala and another (1994) 1 SCC 359 (ix) Bhagwat Shivram Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.6659 of 2016, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 1st February, 2017 6. Shri   M.M.   Nerlikar,   learned   A.G.P.,   on   the other   hand,   submits   that   all   the   documents   placed   on record  by  the  petitioner  indicate  that   petitioner  and his  forefathers  belong  to  “Hindu   Thakur”  or  “Thakur”. He pointed out that none of the old entries in school 6 wp4965-2014 record  of  the  forefathers  of   the  petitioner  indicates that   they  belong   to  Thakur  Scheduled  Tribe. He  also submits that it is not the claim of the petitioner that his ancestors migrated from five scheduled districts in Maharashtra   specified   in   the   Presidential   scheduled Tribe Order, 1956, whereby area restriction was imposed. According to the learned A.G.P, no substance is placed on record by the petitioner to show that at any time, petitioner   or   his   forefather   availed   the   concessions given to the Scheduled Tribe. 7. Regarding   the   tribe   validity   certificate   of petitioner's   cousin   namely   Dhiraj   Gorakh   Suryawanshi, the   learned   A.G.P.   has   raised   objection   that   in   the affidavit of said Dhiraj, he has conveniently not given his   genealogy   to   show   his   blood   relation   with   the petitioner. He   has   also   pointed   out   that   the   tribe validity certificates of other so called blood relatives of   the   petitioner   cannot   be   considered   in   absence   of genealogy   on   record   to   indicate   their   blood   relation with the petitioner. Sum and substance of the arguments made by the learned A.G.P. is that no evidence is placed on   record   by   the   petitioner   before   the   Scrutiny Committee – respondent No.2 to show that he belongs to 7 wp4965-2014 the tribe and the caste mentioned in the school record as   Hindu   Thakur,   with   reference   to   Thakur   Scheduled Tribe. In   support   of   his   submissions,   the   learned A.G.P. relied on the decisions in the following cases :­ (i) Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others 1994 (6) SCC 241 (ii) Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2009 (3) Bom.C.R.497 (iii) Ku. Yogita d/o Anil Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others Writ Petition No.6103 of 2010, decided by Full Bench of this Court on 15th September, 2016 8. In   number   of   cases,   this   Court   and   even   the Hon'ble   the   Supreme   Court   of   India   noticed   that   the person belonging to non­tribal community claimed status of a tribal person, taking benefit of nomenclature of the caste synonymous with tribal groups as specified in the notification. In the case of  Kumari Madhuri Patil and another  (supra), the Hon'ble the Supreme Court has termed such claim as “pseudo status”. 9. In   the   objects   and   reasons   of   Enactment “Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes, 8 wp4965-2014 Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward   Classes   and   Special   Backward   Category (Regulation   of   Issuance   and   Verification   of)   Caste Certificate Act, 2000, it is mentioned that it has been brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Government   that   the incidents   of   procuring   false   Caste   Certificates,   in respect   of   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward   Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category   have reached alarming figure. It results in depriving the genuine   members   of   the   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled Tribes   and   Classes   of   the   said   concessions   and reservations, thereby defeating the very purpose of such concessions. 10. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (supra), the Supreme Court has emphasized the need of consideration of the entire material while determining status   claim   of   an   applicant   including   sociological, anthropological and ethnological perspectives. In Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deoras Bhivapurkar,  reported in  (2009) Mh.L.J.1, the Supreme Court has observed as under :­ 9 wp4965-2014 “Before a person can obtain a declaration that he is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, he must be a member of a tribe.” In   the   case   of  Ashwini   Anil   Chavan   Vs. State   of Maharashtra, reported   in 2006(4)   Mh.L.J.415,   the Division   Bench   of   this   Court   has   considered   the importance of affinity test. 11. The Full Bench, in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur (supra), has observed as under :­ “From   the   affidavit   in   reply   filed   by   the Research   Officer,   the   Court   noted   that   the petitioner   hailed   from   Khamgaon   in   Buldhana District. Before the area  restrictions  were removed   in   1976,   the   Thakur   Scheduled   Tribe was restricted only to five Districts, namely (a)  Ahmednagar  District  in  Akola, Rahuri  and Sangamner Taluka, (b) in Kolaba District (now Raigad),   Karjat,   Khalapur,   Pen,   Panvel   and Sudhagad  Talukas  and  Matheran,  (c)  in Nashik District, Igatpuri, Nashik and Sinnar Talukas, (d) in Thane district, Thane, Kalyan, Murbad, Bhiwandi,   Vasai,   Wada,   Shahapur,   Palghar, Jawhar  and  Mokhada  Talukas. It  was  not  the case   of   the   petitioner   that   his   family   had migrated to Khamgaon from any of these areas. 10 wp4965-2014 The population of the Thakur Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra increased from 1,78,805 in the year   1971   to   3,23,191   in   the   year   1981. Dealing with this, the Division Bench observed as follows :­ “This   cannot   be   explained   as   a   normal reproduction   process   leading   to   the increase in the population of S.T. Within 10 years. Scheduled Tribes by their very nature   stay   close   to   their   original habitat unless they have migrated for work or education which very few still do. This sudden spurt, can reasonably be explained, that persons who did not belong to Thakur S.T.   Because   they   also   bore   a   surname Thakur made false claims as belonging to Thakur S.T. Though they did not belong to Thakur S.T.” The Court observed that the Scrutiny Committee was justified in applying the affinity test. 12. In  the  case  of  Shilpa  Vishnu  Thakur  (supra), while   considering   the   importance   of   anthropological material, the Full Bench observed as under :­ “37. In the compilation that has been placed on   the   record   by   the   State   Government, reliance   is   placed   on   the   written   work   of Anthropologists in support of the submission that the application of the affinity test is an invaluable aid in the determination of the question as to whether an applicant belongs to 11 wp4965-2014 a Scheduled Tribe. A monograph by Prof. R.K. Mutatkar. Honorary Professor  of Anthropology at   the   University   of   Pune,   entitled   'Tribal Identity: Policy Issues' is instructive. The monograph states that Government of India has recommended   that   the   following   broad parameters   be   applied   in   determining   trial characteristics: (i) Primitive traits; (ii) Distinct culture; (iii) Geographical isolation; (iv) Distinct dialect; (v) Animism; (vi) Clan systems; (vi)   Shyness of nature; and (vii)  Backwardness The monograph notes that due to contact with the   outside   world   and   the   effort   to   draw tribal   communities   into   the   democratic political   process,   a   movement   towards acculturation has   been   taking   place. However, the author states that “acculturation does   not   destroy     the   hard   core   of   culture which is manifested in their rituals, beliefs, ceremonies and festivals, in the dialect, and in music and dance.” Prof. Mutatkar speaks of the   danger   of   allowing   caste   groups   with   a similar nomenclature or with a tribal  suffix or prefix to claim benefits which are meant for genuine members of the Scheduled Tribe” 12 wp4965-2014 “When   a   non­tribal   group   or   a   caste group with similar nomenclature or with tribal suffix or prefix to their name claim tribal status, they are not only harming the interest of  a tribal group with whom they are trying to identify by putting up a triable claim, but they are   also   harming   the   interest   of   all tribals in the State and the country, since the benefits of Scheduled Tribe are bestowed according to the generic category   of   Scheduled   Tribe   and   not according to a specific tribal group. The   pseudo­tribal   group,   therefore, nullifies the constitutional guarantees of all the Scheduled Tribes in a State and the country.” 38. Another   instructive   article   on   the subject,   entitled   “Pseudo­Tribalization;   An anthropological   Perspective”   is   written   by Dr. Robin   D.   Tribhuwan,   an   Anthropologist associated   with   the   Tribal   Research   & Training Institute at Pune. The article by Dr. Tribhuwan   refers   to   similarities   of nomenclatures between tribal and non ­tribal communities. This   is   evident   from   the following table: Sr .N o. Tribal communities Non tribal communities 1 Mahadeo Koli, Tokre Koli, Malhar Koli Koli   (including   Son   Koli Suryawanshi Koli, Valti Koli etc): 2 Dhanwar Dhangar 3 Thakur/Thakar Ka­Thakur/Ka­ Thakar Ma­Thakur/ Ma Thakar Thakur (including Bhat Brahmabhat, Thakur, Kshatriya Thakur, Rajput Thakur, Sindhi Thakur, Maratha Thakur, Pardeshi Thakur): 4 Gond Gowari Gowari 13 wp4965-2014 5 Mannerwarlu Munnurwar/ Mannerwar /Mannawar 6 Halba/Halbi Koshti/Halba Kosthi The   monographs   of   Prof. Mutatkar   and   Dr. Tribhuwan have emphasized that there has been a rapid rise in the  growth rate of the Scheduled Tribes   between   1971   and   2001   which   is   not reflective of a natural biological growth but an   attempt   by   communities   which   do   not genuinely have an affinity to Scheduled Tribes towards pseudo­tribalization. There contributions in the written work of experts on the subject only to go emphasis the dangers of the   benefits   granted   to   the   Scheduled   Tribes being   frittered   away   at   their   expense   if unverified claims of impostors are not nipped in the bud.” 13. While considering the effect of removal of area restriction by Act No.108 of 1976, the Division Bench of this   Court,   relying   upon   Full   Bench   judgment   in   the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur (supra), in the matter of Dinesh   Ramesh   Thakur   Vs. State   of   Maharashtra   and others, reported  in 2013  (3) Bom.C.R.463, observed  as under :­ 14 wp4965-2014 “We need not dilate over the issue as, in our view, upon removal of the area restriction by the   amending   Act   of   1976,   the   persons belonging   to   a   particular   Scheduled   Tribe, though   residing   in   different   areas   than earlier   specified   or   migrated   from   the   said area,   can   also   claim   to  be   belonging   to  the same Scheduled Tribe. In our view, however, the respondent Tribe Scrutiny Committee is not prohibited from applying the test of original place of residence as one of the factors to be considered   in   arriving   at   a   decision   of validation   of   the   claim   of   the   claimant   in view of the clear pronouncement of law in Full Bench decision of this Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur   Vs. State   of   Maharashtra   &   others (supra)” 14. Even   in   the   matter   of    Ku. Yogita   d/o   Anil Sonawane  (supra),   Full   Bench   of   this   Court   concluded that in such matters, one of the important factors, for Tribe Scrutiny Committee to consider would be to find if or not applicant proves that he or his ancestors resided or migrated from earlier scheduled area. 15. In the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and  Verification   of   Tribe   Claims   and   others  (supra), the Apex Court laid down certain broad parameters, which 15 wp4965-2014 are   to   be   kept   in   view   while   dealing   with   the   caste claim. While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance   may   be   placed   on   pre­Independence   documents. In   the   event   of   a   doubt   on   the   credibility   of   a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral   evidence,   for   which   an   opportunity   has   to   be afforded to the applicant. While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the   Scheduled   Tribe,   a   cautious   approach   has   to   be adopted. The affinity test may be used to corroborate the   documentary   evidence   and   should   not   be   the   sole criteria to reject the claim. In this case, the Apex Court has also made it clear that the burden of proving the   caste   claim   is   upon   the   applicant   and   he   has   to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case   the   material   produced   by   the   applicant   does   not prove his claim, the  Scrutiny Committee cannot  gather the evidence on its own to prove or disprove his caste. 16. Keeping in mind the above principles of law, if the material placed on record is examined to find out whether the Scrutiny Committee – respondent No. 2 has 16 wp4965-2014 taken probable view or its finding is perverse, it has come   to   our   notice   that   in   the   school   leaving certificate   of   the   father   of   the   petitioner   namely Ravindra Ganesh Suryawanshi, his caste is mentioned as “Hindu Thakur”. Even in the extract of school admission register of Ravindra Ganesh Suryawanshi, his  caste  is mentioned as “Hindu Thakur”. This entry is recorded in the   school   record   on   22nd  June,   1971. Even   the certificate issued by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited shows that as per the official record, caste of Shri   R.G.   Suryawanshi   is   mentioned   as   “Hindu­Thakur”. Another   important   aspect   is   that   the   school   leaving certificate of grandfather of the petitioner namely Gana Shankar   Thakur,   his   caste   is   mentioned   as   “Hindu­ Thakur”. The   school   leaving   certificate   shows   that grandfather of the petitioner was admitted in the school on   7th  September,   1946   and   he   left   the   school   on   18th August,   1954. Thus,   entry   regarding   caste   of   the grandfather of the petitioner must have been taken in the school record at the time of admission i.e. on 7th September, 1946, which is pre­Independence entry. Even this   important   document   does   not   indicate   that   the grandfather of the petitioner was  recognized as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. In this Writ Petition, the extract of 17 wp4965-2014 death entry register of village Paldhi   (Exh­F1) shows that   on   14th  November,   1941,   the   caste   of   the   great grandfather namely Shankar Maharu is recorded as simply “Thakur”. Thus,   it   reveals   that   except   the   school record   of   the   petitioner,   in   every   school   record   and even in Government record, entry of caste “Hindu Thakur” or   “Thakur”   is   recorded,   including   pre­Independence Government record and school record. Thus, the finding of the Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted with that no school record or Government record is placed on record, which   would   show   that   the   category   of   father, grandfather or great grandfather  of the petitioner  is recorded as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. These entries show that ancestors of petitioner belong to caste “Thakur”, which is non­tribal caste. 17. In absence of an authentic record showing the category   of   the   petitioner   and   his   forefathers   as Scheduled   Tribe,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   certainly justified   while   considering   the   Vigilance   Cell   report and affinity test. The Vigilance Cell report does not show   that   the   petitioner   belongs   to   Thakur   Scheduled Tribe category. Even the concerned Research Officer has written special note that the petitioner  cannot clear 18 wp4965-2014 even   the   affinity   test. The   entire   school   record   and Government   record   placed   on   record   by   the   petitioner shows that the petitioner and even his great grandfather are hailing from village Paldhi (Kh), Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon, which is not the place specified in scheduled   five   districts   under   the   Presidential Scheduled   Tribe   Order,   1956. In   the   circumstances, except   the   validity   certificate   of   Dhiraj   Gorakh Suryawanshi,   his   affidavit   and   tribe   validity certificate   of   one   Bhagwat   Raosaheb   Suryawanshi supported   by   his   affidavit,   no   other   substance   is   on record,   which   slightly   indicates   that   the   petitioner falls   within   category   of   Thakur  Scheduled   Tribe. As rightly held by the Scrutiny Committee, Bhagwat Raosaheb Suryawanshi is not blood related with the family of the petitioner. Therefore,   the   validity   certificate   of Bhagwat Raosaheb  Suryawanshi and  his affidavit do not carry any importance. 18. No   doubt,   the   validity   certificate   issued   by the Scrutiny Committee at Nasik dated 19th January, 2005 shows   that   the   caste   certificate   of   Dhiraj   Gorakh Suryawanshi as belonging to Thakur  Scheduled  Tribe  is validated   by   the   said   Scrutiny   Committee. However, 19 wp4965-2014 Dhiraj   Gorakh   Suryawanshi,   in   his   affidavit,   has conveniently not mentioned his genealogy to show how he is blood related with the petitioner. No doubt, father of   the   petitioner,   in   his   affidavit,   has   given   the genealogy   to   show   that   Dhiraj   Gorakh   Suryawanshi   is distant   cousin   of   the   petitioner. However,   this genealogy   is   not   supported   by   other   supporting documentary   evidence   to   show   that   Dhiraj   Gorakh Suryawanshi is blood relative of the petitioner. 19. Even   in   the   case   of  Raju   Ramsing   Vasave (supra), relied on by the petitioner, the Apex Court has made it clear that if it is found that in granting a certificate   in   favour   of   member   of   a   family   vital evidence   had   been   ignored,   it   would   be   open   to   the Committee   to   arrive   at   a   different   finding. Thus, because   the   caste   certificate   of   Dhiraj   Gorakh Suryawanshi   is   validated   by   the   Scrutiny   Committee, Nashik, the Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar is not bound to validate the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The validity certificate is issued in favour   of   Dhiraj   Gorakh   Suryawanshi   carries   only persuasive importance and not more. Otherwise also, it cannot be ignored that though petitioner heavily relied 20 wp4965-2014 on   validity   certificate   issued   in   favour   of   Dhiraj Suryawanshi, the detailed order passed by the Scrutiny Committee,   Nasik   is   not   placed   on   record   by   the petitioner to show that speaking order was passed by the said   Scrutiny   Committee,   after   considering   every relevant material placed on record and after its full satisfaction. Therefore, only on the basis of validity certificate   issued   in   favour   of   Dhiraj   Suryawanshi, thereby   claim   of   the   petitioner   cannot   be   validated, when   it   is   not   supported   by   affinity   test   and   other material placed on record. 20. The case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra), relied on by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts that in that case, the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants without going into merits of the matter afresh. Therefore, the matter was remanded by   the   Supreme   Court   to   the   High   Court   for   fresh consideration in accordance with law. 21. The case of  Amruta Vijay More  (supra), relied on behalf of the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts for   the   reason   that   in   that   case,   the   claim   of   the appellant was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee solely on the ground of affinity test. The High Court merely 21 wp4965-2014 dittoed the observations made by the Scrutiny Committee. 22. Even   the   case   of Apoorva   Vinay   Nichale (supra), relied on by the petitioner, is distinguishable for the reason that in that case, the caste claim of the sister of the petitioner was validated on the basis of same documentary  evidence relied  on by the  petitioner therein. 23. In the case of  Bhagwat Shivram Pawar  (supra), the validity certificate of many near relatives of the petitioner therein were available on record. However, no such certificates are before the Scrutiny Committee at   Nandurbar   in   the   present   case. In   other   cases, relied upon by the petitioner, the pseudo status claimed by the petitioner is not for consideration. Thus, those cases were decided on the basis of peculiar facts before the Court. 24. Accordingly,   our   conclusion   is   that   the petitioner can not bring on record reliable documentary evidence to prove that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On   the   other   hand,   the   documents   placed   on record show that even grandfather of the petitioner was educated. The   origin   of   the   petitioner   and   his 22 wp4965-2014 ancestors is not from scheduled five districts. The petitioner   even   could   not   clear   the   affinity   test. Therefore, the cumulative effect of these circumstances is that the petitioner cannot discharge the burden to prove that he falls in the category of Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On  the  other  hand,  the  possibility  cannot  be ruled out that the petitioner is claiming pseudo status as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Scrutiny Committee, at Nandurbar while invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner is the possible   view   and   cannot   be   termed   as   perverse   one, which calls for interference by this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction. 25. In the result, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Rule stands discharged accordingly. 26. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, Civil Application Nos.4201/2018 and 4203/2018  do not survive and stand disposed of. (SUNIL K. KOTWAL) [T.V. NALAWADE] JUDGE JUDGE npj/wp4965­2014 23 wp4965-2014 After   pronouncement   of   the   order,   learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for grant of stay to the above order. The effect and operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. (SUNIL K. KOTWAL) [T.V. NALAWADE] JUDGE JUDGE npj/wp4965­2014