1 22.wp.4244.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4244 OF 2022 Gajanan S/o Madhukar Kadam and another .Vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member- Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Ms P.D. Rane, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.P. Marpakwar, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr. M.V. Bute, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 27/02/2025 P.C. 1. The petitioners take exception to the order dated 29.01.2022, passed by the respondent No.1– Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:- In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad, Akola, the petitioner No.1 applied for the post of ‘Multipurpose Worker’ in scheduled tribe category and on selection, he was appointed vide order dated 01.02.1999 as ‘Multipurpose Worker’. 2025:BHC-NAG:2035-DB 2 22.wp.4244.22.odt The petitioner No.2 on completion of her 10th standard and Polytechnic course, persuaded her education in B.Tech (Civil Engineering). The petitioners forwarded the proposal for validity of their caste claim, to the respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee on 18.04.2012 and 22.12.2020 along with the necessary documents. Thereupon, inquiry through Police Vigilance Cell was conducted and a report was submitted on 08.08.2012 in respect of petitioner No.1 and on 25.11.2021 in respect of petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their respective replies to the Vigilance Cell reports. Then, the scrutiny committee after hearing the petitioners, invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners vide order dated 29.01.2022. Hence, this petition. 3. Ms. Rane, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the oldest document in the present matter is of pre-independence period i.e. of 1927 which supports the tribe claim of the petitioners as ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe. She submits that in all the documents submitted by the petitioners and referred by the respondents-committee in paragraph-4 of the impugned order, in every documents in which the caste is mentioned, the caste ‘Thakur’ is written. It is submitted that, in view of the sufficiency of documentary evidence in support of the tribe claim of the 3 22.wp.4244.22.odt petitioners, the rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the ground of affinity, is erroneous. 4. It is further argued that in paragraph-6 of the impugned order, a chart of the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell is given. In all these documents the caste recorded is ‘Bhat’. It is submitted that the said entries are not of the relatives of the petitioners, despite the same, the reliance has been placed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to make them the basis to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. supports the impugned order and submits that, since the Vigilance Cell during its inquiry found many documents of the relatives of the petitioners as ‘Bhat’, relying upon those entries, the tribe claim of the petitioners was rightly invalidated. 6. In the above referred backdrop, we have perused the record and the impugned order. From the impugned order, it is evident that the committee has relied upon the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell having caste entry as ‘Bhat’. 7. According to the committee, these documents are of relatives of the petitioners. However, the reply of the petitioners to the Vigilance Cell report specifically denied 4 22.wp.4244.22.odt any relations with these persons mentioned in a chart given in Paragraph-6 of the impugned order. 8. Considering this, a specific query was put to the learned A.G.P., to show the evidence if any collected by the Vigilance Cell to establish the fact that these persons are in relation with the petitioners as claimed by committee. 9. The learned A.G.P. failed to point out any such evidence. The impugned order also does not mention about further inquiry after the petitioners denied the relationship with such persons by filing reply. 10. In absence of any such evidence, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioners on such ground, is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 785, has held that, affinity test by the Vigilance Cell is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case. It is further held that affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. 5 22.wp.4244.22.odt 12. In the present matter, though there are numerous documents filed on record by the petitioners in support of his tribe claim as ‘Thakur’ and one of the oldest documents is of 1927 i.e. of pre-independence period, the documentary evidence is discarded on the ground of affinity test. Such approach of the committee is contrary to the well settled law. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the committee for fresh consideration after taking into consideration the above referred observations. Accordingly, we pass the following order :- i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. ii) The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 – Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. iii) The respondent No.1-Committee is directed to reconsider the tribe claim of the petitioners within four months from the date of appearance of the petitioners. iv) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.1-Committee within one week. 6 22.wp.4244.22.odt The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) C.L.Dhakate