M.T. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Civil Application no.15395 of 2011, seeking intervention in Writ Petition no.7796 of 2011 is allowed, for the reasons stated therein. The applicant is permitted to intervene in the Writ Petition.

3. In these Petitions, common questions of law have arisen upon rejection of the claims of the Writ Petitioners, by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, that they belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. One of the grounds in common for rejection of the claims of each of the petitioners is that mere old entries in the school record that either the petitioners or their ancestors shown as belonging to Thakur Caste, has no relevance and as such, one of the factors for determination is as to whether the petitioners or their ancestors had migrated from the area for which the Thakur tribe and other subtribes of Thakur were declared as Scheduled Tribe before the removal of area restriction by Act No.108 of 1976. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has held that the removal of area restriction by Act No.108 of 1976 would not enable any person belonging to any tribe/ community to claim the status of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, and he will have to establish that he or his predecessors have migrated from the earlier prescribed area..

5. Since the said common question had arisen in the present Petitions, the Writ Petitions were clubbed together by the Court. Further, finding that an important issue concerning the status of large number of persons would be involved, the Court has requested Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Advocate, to appear as an Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court in the matters. Shri Talekar has graciously accepted to act as such and the submissions made by him bear out our expectations.

6. The common reasons given by the Scrutiny Committee in each of the matter, on this aspect, in short, are as under:

That Thakur, Thakar, KaThakur, KaThakar, MaThakur, MaThakar are included in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra at serial no.44. Further, Thakar is included in the list of Nomadic Tribes at serial no.22. These people lead nomadic way of life, who move from village to village and are mainly found in Ratnigiri and Sindhudurg districts. Thakur is an advanced caste, known as Thakur, KshatriyaThakur, RajputThakur, SindhiThakur, PardeshiThakur, VaishyaThakur, etc. Further, Thakur is also found in Balutadar castes such as Grambhat, Bramhabhat. Therefore, it is important to verify whether each of the applicants had proved his claim as belonging to Thakur, i.e. a Scheduled Tribe, listed at serial no. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra. Merely because the caste Thakur appeared in the documents would not clearly distinguish the social status of the incumbent. Therefore, besides necessity of affinity tests by considering traits, characteristics and traditional customs of the claimant, it is also necessary to find out as to whether the claimants or their ancestors have migrated from any place situated in 25 Tahsils of five districts of Western Maharashtra as were listed in the list of Scheduled Tribes prior to the removal of area restriction of 1976 i.e. between 1956 and 1976. The intention behind removal of area restriction was to entitle the tribal persons who are migrated and staying outside the restricted area to claim Scheduled Tribe status. However, those who belonged to different communities do not automatically become eligible to claim such status of Scheduled Tribe.

7. On the basis of these reasonings and finding that neither the petitioners nor their ancestors had migrated from 25 Tahsils alongwith other grounds and reasons recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, the claims of these petitioners, that they belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe were negativated.

8. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the par