Allowed

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and Others v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Bombay HC10 Aug 2023WP/2297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench held that the Scrutiny Committee misdirected itself by over-valuing affinity tests and area restrictions against pre-Constitutional documents showing 'Thakur' entry. The court set aside the order and declared the petitioners belong to the 'Thakur' ST.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27-9-2022 set aside; petitioners declared to belong to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue validity certificate within three weeks.

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and Others Vs Scheduled… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 WP-2297-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.2297 of 2023

¶4

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and others

¶5

Versus

¶6

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Counsel for Petitioners.

¶8

Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2023 .

¶11

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.

¶12

2.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee on 27-9-2022 invalidating their claim of belonging to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe. In support of such claim, the petitioners relied upon various
pre-Constitutional documents of their forefathers of the years 1926, 1929, 1939
and 1945 which had the entry ‘Thakur’. These old documents were verified by
the Vigilance Cell and in its report it was stated that such documents did exist.
According to the Vigilance Cell, there was no affinity and the family members
could not indicate their traits and customs similar to the members of ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe. This was mentioned by the Vigilance Cell in its report. The
Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell proceeded to
invalidate the petitioners’ claim principally on the ground of absence of affinity
and area restriction.

¶13

3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused
the record of the Scrutiny Committee. It is not in dispute that the entire
documentary material relied upon by the petitioners especially
pre-Constitutional documents have the entry ‘Thakur’. The only reason assigned
by the Scrutiny Committee is the absence of affinity and the aspect of area
restriction. We find that these issues have been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its recent decision. The question with regard to the weightage

¶14

2 WP-2297-2023.odt

¶15

to be given to the affinity test has been decided by the Larger Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Versus State of Maharashtra and others[2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785]. It has
been held therein that the affinity test cannot be treated as a litmus test to
decide a caste claim and it is not an integral part in process of determination of
the correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case. The material collected has
to be considered with all other material on record that has probative value and
then the claim has to be decided. This decision has been followed in Priya
Pramod Gajbe Versus The State of Maharashtra and others[Civil Appeal
No.7117 of 2019, decided on 11-7-2023]. It has been observed therein that with
the passage of time, absence of old traits and customs cannot be a reason to
discard the caste claim. It has also been observed that if a candidate is staying in
an urban area, these factors cannot be a reason for disallowing his/her caste
claim.

¶16

4.We find that these two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarify the
position in that regard. Insofar as the area restriction is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jaywant Dilip Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra and others
[2018(5) ALL MR 975] has held that with the removal of area restriction, the
said aspect is not relevant for determining the tribe status. In view of this settled
position, when the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it is
seen that the Committee misdirected itself by giving undue importance to the
affinity test and the aspect of area restriction. The probative value of the
pre-Constitutional documents has to be taken into consideration by the
Committee which it failed to do. In that view of the matter, the following order
is passed :

¶17

(i)The order dated 27-9-2022 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set
aside.

¶18

(ii) It is declared that the petitioners have proved that they belong to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

(iii)The Scrutiny Committee shall within a period of three weeks from
receiving the copy of this order issue a validity certificate in favour of the
petitioners.

¶20

3 WP-2297-2023.odt

¶21

(iv)Till the Scrutiny Committee issues the validity certificate, the
petitioners can rely upon this order to indicate that their claim of
belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe has been accepted.

¶22

5. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶23

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶24

LANJEWAR

¶25

Digitally Signed By :PRASHANT DEWAJI LANJEWAR Signing Date:11.08.2023

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and Others v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and Others v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Arundhati Ravindra Kalmegh Vs the Jt. Commissioner Cum Vice Chairman, the S.T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

M/S Nakshatra Advertising, Thr. Proprietor, Rajendra S/O Krushnarao Guhe Vs Umiya Urban Co-Operative Bank Mydt. Thr. Chief Executive Officer and Another

Babuji Ramaji Gawali and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Vilas S/O Yashwant Chatur and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Tulsabai Niranjan Gondane Vs Secretary, Deptt. of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Nagendra S/O Gomarao Atankar Vs Union Bank of India, Nagpur Thr. Its Manager and Others