documents in support of his claim. The Petitioner produced the basic and fundamental documents, viz. school record in respect of his great-grand father from paternal side in which his caste was recorded as “Thakur” in the year 1909 in the school record. Other documents were also annexed which show that the Petitioner's ancestor's caste was known as “Thakur”. The Petitioner also produced 12 caste validity certificates granted to his near relatives from the paternal side, issued by Respondent No. 2 Committee. The said Committee called for Vigilance Cell Report, who was pleased to make an investigation and submit a positive report. Respondent No. 2 – Committee, however, invalidated caste certificate of the Petitioner by observing that the Petitioner did not come from a tribal area; secondly, it held that the Petitioner did not succeed in the affinity test and was not able to establish his caste claim of the “Thakur” Tribal community and on that ground, his certificate was invalidated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 – Committee has not taken into consideration ratio of the judgment in the case of – Anand, Appellant Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., Respondents [(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 113]. He submitted that the Apex Court in the said judgment has held that the affinity test should not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe; and secondly, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.
