2011 Supreme(SC) 1056

2011 (7) Supreme 624
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ
Anand — Appellant
versus
Committee For Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6340 of 2004
Decided on : 8-11-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) The genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the applicant. Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
(2) The burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Article 342 ¯ Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 ¯ Halbi Scheduled tribe ¯ Maharasthra Scheduled Tribes (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of), Certificate Rules 2003 ¯ Respondent no. 2 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board appointing the appellant as field officer against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe on probation subject to production of cast validity certificate ¯ Appellant failing to produce caste validity certificate, hence respondent no. 2 issuing a notice of termination of appellant’s service ¯ Appellant approaching High Court, and High Court directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the caste claim of the appellant within eight weeks ¯ Caste Scrutiny Committee dissatisfied with the documentary evidence filed by the appellant before it referring the appellant’s application to its Vigilance Cell ¯ Vigilance Officer after inquiry finding that the appellant was a member of ‘Halbi’ sub-caste of Koshti Caste but did not belong to Halbi Scheduled Tribe ¯ Caste Scrutiny Committee recording finding that appellant did not belong to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, and canceling and forfeiting the caste certificate issued by SDM competent authority ¯ Appellant again filing writ petition before High Court, the High Court upholding the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ Held, Caste Scrutiny Committee and the High Court did not examine the documents filed by the appellant in proper prospective and laid undue stress on the affinity test ¯ Claim of the appellant deserved re-examination again and remitted the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh examination ¯ Appeal allowed ¯ Case remitted. (Para 20)

        (b) Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950 ¯ Decision of Caste claims ¯ Broad parameters ¯ The genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the applicant ¯ While dealing with documentary evidence, reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents ¯ While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted ¯ Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. (Paras 18)

        (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Sections 101 to 104 ¯ Caste claim ¯ The burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case

        (1) The appellant, who holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (BE), was appointed as a field officer by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, respondent No.2, against a post reserved for “Scheduled Tribe”, on probation, subject to production of the Caste Validity Certificate. On a failure to produce the same, respondent No.2 issued a notice of termination of service to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed petition before the High Court praying for a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the caste claim of the appellant. The High Court allowed the writ petition and, directed respondent No.1 to decide the caste claim of the appellant within eight weeks. In furtherance of the said order, the appellant made an application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 along with the application, the appellant submitted several documents. All these documents recorded the Caste of those persons as `Halbi’.

        Not being satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the Caste Scrutiny Committee forwarded the application to the Vigilance Cell in terms of the Rules for conducting school, home and other enquiry. The Vigilance Officer interviewed the appellant, collected information about the characteristics of his caste, submitted its report inter alia, reporting that the characteristics, as noticed during enquiry did not resemble that of ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Officer submitted a report unfavourable to the appellant. The Vigilance Cell found that the appellant was a member of ‘Halbi’ sub-caste of the ‘Koshti’ caste but does not belong to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelled and forfeited the Caste Certificate granted by competent authority SDM. Appellant challenged the cancellation of his caste certificate before the High Court and having failed there filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

       Findings

        Appellant’s claim not properly examined by Caste Scrutiny Committee and High Court. Matter remitted to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh examination.