The probative value of pre-1950 records and the burden on authorities to assist in arriving at a correct decision in caste validation cases.

S. S. SHINDE, J. :- Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for respective respondents waive notice. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision dated 14-10-2009 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Thakur-Scheduled Tribe'.

4. The petitioner applied for issuance of Tribe Certificate as "Thakur Scheduled Tribe" to the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule, The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule Sub Division, Dhule issued tribe certificate of "Thakur-Scheduled Tribe" to the petitioner on 18-12-2000.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to "Thakur-Scheduled Tribe". The petitioner was admitted in the academic year 2006-2007 to B.Tech. (Paint) course in respondent No.5 college. Throughout school record, the caste of the petitioner is recorded as "Thakur-Scheduled Tribe". It is further case of the petitioner that in the basic school record of grand-father, father and other close blood relatives and petitioner herself, the caste is recorded as "Thakur", and thus, the family status of the petitioner, even prior to the Presidential Order of 1950 is shown as "Thakur". It is further case of the petitioner that, the respondent Committee has issued caste validity certificate on 21-7-2005 in favour of Kumari Priyanka Baliram Wagh, real sister of the petitioner. The said caste validity certificate was issued after an inquiry through the Vigilance Officer.

6. The caste claim of the petitioner's cousin uncle Shri Bhausaheb Tulshiram Wagh is also held valid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. So far as petitioner's tribe claim is concerned, the respondent-Committee called the petitioner for interview on 15th July, 2009, and accordingly, the petitioner has attended office of the respondent-Committee and submitted detailed reply. In the said reply the petitioner herein replied the Vigilance Cell report and comments of Research Officer. The petitioner has elaborately answered each and every point raised by Research Officer. The petitioner has stressed on the point of documentary evidence which she has already submitted, out of which some documents were prior to 1950 in respect of her grand-father and cousin grand-father. The birth extract of petitioner's grant-father shows his caste as "Thakur". The petitioner has also submitted school records of her close blood relatives, wherein the caste is clearly mentioned as "Thakur". According to the petitioner, there is no single contra evidence in respect of family status of the petitioner brought on record by the respondent-Committee. In spite of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the respondent-Committee rejected the Tribe claim of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that after the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 7260/2006, the petitioner's result of first year and second year was declared.

7. Though the petitioner has taken number of grounds in the petition, the counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly relied on three grounds. Firstly, it was not proper on the part of respondent-Committee to ignore and discard the evidence in the matter of validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of real sister of the petitioner and that too, when there is no any single contra evidence to reject the claim of the petitioner; Secondly, it is an arbitrary action on the part of the respondent-Committee to reject the claim of the petitioner when there is no single contra evidence on record; and thirdly, the respondent-Committee has not properly considered the documentary evidence in support of the family status of the petitioner from the year 1924 in respect of grand-father, father and petitioner herself, wher