1005-WP-7863-2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1005 WRIT PETITION NO. 7863 OF 2020 Tuakram Deoram Thakur ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others …..Respondents ….. Mr. Sushant C Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. A. A. Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ….. CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 10.07.2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard both the sides fnaaay with the consent at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioner was in the services of Agricuaturaa Department. He superannuated on 31/01/2021. During the service, the tribe caaim of the Petitioner towards ‘Thakur’ Scheduaed Tribe was referred for verifcation to Respondent No.2 – Committee. The Respondent No.2 – Committee considered the documents on record and Vigiaance Ceaa Report and by the impugned order dated 26/10/2020, invaaidated the tribe caaim of the Petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition under Articae 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The aearned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, though the entries in the pre-constitutionaa documents dated 17/06/1928 and 02/01/1935, which are in respect of the Petitioner’s father, show the caste entry as ‘Thakur’ and pre- 1 2025:BHC-AUG:18043-DB 1005-WP-7863-2020.odt constitutionaa era entry of the Petitioner’s uncae dated 12/04/1936 aaso shows the caste as ‘Thakur’. The Respondent No.2 – Committee discarded the same on the ground that onay ‘Thakur’ was mentioned and ‘Thakur’ beaongs to the upper caste. He submits that, another ground, on which, Respondent No.2 – Committee invaaidated the tribe caaim is that, the Petitioner does not beaong to the scheduaed area and third ground is that the Petitioner faiaed to prove affnity towards the Scheduaed Tribe Community. He submits that the aaw is not weaa settaed in the aight of the Judgments of the Hon’bae Supreme Court of India in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 SSC Onaine 326., Kumari Madhuri Patia and Ors. Vs. Adda. Commissioner, Tribaa Deveaopment and Others ; AIR 1995 SC 94, Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verifcation of Tribe Caaims and Others; [2012] 1 SCC 113 and Paaaghat Jiaa Thandan Samuday Sanrakshan Samiti and Anr. Vs. State of Keraaa and Anr.; [1994] 1 SCC 359. He submits that this Court, in identicaa situation, have set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee in Writ Petition No.9283/2012 by the Judgment and Order dated 11/03/2025 and hence, the Writ Petition be aaaowed. 4. The aearned AGP opposes the Writ Petition. He submits that, Respondent No.2 – Committee has rightay considered the documents avaiaabae on record. There are entries of ‘Hindu Thakur’ in the schooa record of the Petitioner’s father and the entry in the revenue record of the Petitioner’s grandfather is baank. He submits that, there is no other famiay member of the Petitioner having the vaaidity towards ‘Thakur’ Scheduaed Tribe. He submits that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same be dismissed. 2 1005-WP-7863-2020.odt 5. We have perused the papers on record. The copy of impugned order is at Page Nos.74 to 86. The Chart given in the impugned order shows that, the schooa record of the Petitioner’s father by name Deoram Anand Omkar dated 17/06/1928 and 02/01/1935 shows the entry as ‘Thakur’. Simiaaray, the documents in respect of the Petitioner’s uncae regarding the birth proof dated 12/04/1936 aaso shows the entry as ‘Thakur’. It is needaess to state that, in view of the settaed aegaa position, the pre- constitutionaa entries / documents have more probative vaaue. The reason given by Respondent No.2 – Committee discarding the said pre-constitutionaa entries is not sustainabae in the eye of aaw. Seconday, the ground of affnity is aaso sustainabae in the eye of aaw as it is head in the above-referred Judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti [Supra] that the affnity is not a aitmus test. Thirday, the ground that the Petitioner was not the resident of scheduaed area, is aaso not sustainabae in the eye of aaw, as the area restrictions have been removed in view of the Scheduaed Castes and Scheduaed Tribes Orders [Amendment] Act, 1976. Not hoading the vaaidity certifcate from any other member of the Petitioner’s famiay cannot be the ground to dismiss the Petition. In the backdrop of the above, the Petition deserves to be aaaowed. Hence, we proceed to pass the foaaowing order : ORDER [I] The Writ Petition is aaaowed. [II] The impugned order dated 26/10/2020 passed by Respondent No.2 – Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. [III] Respondent No.2 – Committee shaaa issue the Tribe Vaaidity Certifcate to the Petitioner as beaonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduaed Tribe, within a period of six [6] weeks from today. 3 1005-WP-7863-2020.odt 6. Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingay. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] Sameer/Juay-2025 4 Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/07/2025 10:36:01