Quashed

Ankita D/O Ravindra More and Another v. the Vice- Chairman/ Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Bombay HC16 Aug 2024WP/3114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners whose Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur' validity certificates were rejected by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee challenged the decision. The court found pre-1939 school and birth records of blood relatives showing 'Thakur' sufficient, held the affinity test not decisive, quashed the rejection order, and directed issuance of validity certificates.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29/12/2020 quashed; respondents directed to issue Thakur (Scheduled Tribe) validity certificates to petitioners within two weeks.

Ankita D/O Ravindra More and Another Vs the Vice- Chairman/… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:9175-DB

¶2

Judgment WP 3114.2024.odt

¶3

-- 1 --

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2024

¶6

1. Ankita D/o Ravindra More Aged about 27 yrs, Occ. Student

¶7

1. Abha D/o Ravindra More Aged about 24 yrs, Occ. Student .. Petitioners Both R/o M-104, Kirti Apartment, Nandanvan Cement Road, Nandanvan, Nagpur – 440009

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Vice-Chairman/Member – Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste .. Respondent Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashivpura, Amravati

¶10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate with Ms. Geeta Tiwari, Advocate for petitioners.

¶11

Mr. N.R.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.

¶12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 16, 2024

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶15

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

(2) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Risod, District – Washim, issued a caste certificate dated 30/03/2019 in favour of the petitioners

¶17

of belonging to “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe). Since the petitioners were

¶18

PAGE 1 OF 4

¶19

-- 2 --

¶20

Judgment WP 3114.2024.odt

¶21

students of Post Graduate Teaching Department of Home Science, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, the Principal of the said Department referred the tribe claim of the petitioners to respondent Committee for verification. Vide impugned order dated 29/12/2020, the claim of the petitioners for issuance of validity certificate came to be rejected by the respondent Committee. As a sequel of above, the present petition.

¶22

(3) The contentions of Ms.Rane, learned Counsel for the petitioners, are that the documents, which are produced in support of the tribe claim of the petitioners speak of “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe). Our attention is invited to the tribe entries in the documents of relatives of petitioners, namely, Yadav Dajiba (School record 19/07/1922), male child born to Bajirao (15/03/1924), Rajaram Sitaram (School record 19/09/1926), male child born to Bajirao Thakur (22/11/1926), Apparao Bajirao (grandfather of the petitioners – School record dated 23/06/1930), Atmaram Sitaram (School record – 30/06/1931), Vinayak Kisanrao More (School record 18/06/1941), male born to Atmaram Sitaram Thakur (19/05/1947), female child born to Shankar Bajirao Thakur (18/05/1947). Based on these entries, which are of pre-Constitutional era, it is claimed that the petitioners have established their tribe claim as the said evidence has more probative value.

¶23

PAGE 2 OF 4

¶24

-- 3 --

¶25

Judgment WP 3114.2024.odt

¶26

(4) As against above, Mr.N.R.Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, has opposed the tribe claim of the petitioners stating that considering the documents relied on by the petitioners at Sr.Nos.1 to 3 as mentioned in paragraph (13) of the impugned order viz. Dajiba Yadav, male child born to Bajirao and Rajaram Sitaram, the petitioners have failed to establish their relation with them. It is further submitted that the tribe claims of the petitioners were also rejected on the ground that they have failed to satisfy the affinity test.

¶27

(5) We have considered the rival claims of the parties.

¶28

(6) Even if birth entry dated 22/11/1939 in relation to Suman Shankarrao More is shown to be “Maratha Thakur”, the entry taken in the column of relationship depicts that the relationship was not disclosed by the petitioners with the said party. Even if it is presumed that there is a blood relationship of the said party with petitioners, the entries prior to 1939 i.e. 1922, 1924, 1926, 1930, 1931 in the documents referred to at Sr.Nos.1 to 6 in the impugned order, in categorical terms speak of “Thakur” caste. In that view of the matter, if the adverse entry in relation to Suman Shankarrao More as belonging to “Maratha Thakur” is ignored, still the petitioner can be said to have established the claim based on the pre-Constitutional era documents of belonging to “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe).

¶29

PAGE 3 OF 4

¶30

-- 4 --

¶31

Judgment WP 3114.2024.odt

¶32

(7) Another reason for invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not able to clear affinity test. The Apex Court has already ruled that the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test, which can isolatedly form the basis for rejection of the tribe claim.

¶33

(8) In this background, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have established their tribe claims of belonging to “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe), on the basis of pre-Constitutional era documents in relation to their blood relatives, the impugned order, in our opinion, is not sustainable. That being so, the impugned order dated 29/12/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent to issue validity certificates in favour of the petitioners of their belonging to “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe) within a period of two weeks from the date of production of this Judgment.

¶34

(9) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

¶35

costs.

¶36

[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]

¶37

[ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ]

¶38

KOLHE

¶39

PAGE 4 OF 4

Ankita D/O Ravindra More and Another v. the Vice- Chairman/ Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita D/O Ravindra More and Another v. the Vice- Chairman/ Member Secretary, S.T. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Madhukar Lanjewar and Others vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Rashtriya Kamgar Education Society, Thr. Secretary Shri. Deepak Marotrao Nagose vs Ku. Archana Babanrao Thakre and Another

Subhash S/O Kashinath Shende vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Rajnish Singh S/O Ayodhyaprasad Singh Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through Its Regional Manager, Nagpur

Ku. Madhavi D/O Sadashiv Naware (Smt. Madhavi W/O Vijay Mahajan) Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee,Amravati Division, Amravat

Rambhau S/O Raghobaji Bachale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mumbai and Others