B.R. Gavai, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. All the petitioners are real sister and brothers, who have approached this Court being aggrieved by the decision rendered by the respondent no.1 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners of belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Shri K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the rejection of the claim of petitioners of tribal status is, only on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove the affinity test. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment delivered in case of Anand .vrs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others reported at 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919 has held that an affinity test cannot be considered as a litmus test. He submits that it is further held that if there are pre-Independence documents, the same are to be given more probative value and the affinity test would only act as an corroboration or otherwise to the documentary evidence. The learned Senior Counsel submits that though the petitioners have produced voluminous documents from their paternal side prior to 1950 showing caste of their forefathers to be Halbi, erroneously by applying the affinity test, the claim has been invalidated. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the finding that the profession of weaving is Taboo in Halbi Tribe is also not correct. Learned Senior Counsel relying upon paragraph no.231 of the Amravati District Gazette submits that even from the said paragraph it would reveal that the tribals belonging to Halbi have taken up profession of weaving in Ellichpur City, Anjangaon Surji in Daryapur Taluq. The learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.

4. Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 Committee, on the contrary submits that the Fareira Committee, which was appointed by the State Government during the pendency of the case of Milind Katware, has given a specific finding that the profession of weaving is Taboo, in so far as Halbi tribe is concerned. The learned Counsel further submits that in the vigilance cell inquiry conducted in case of one of the petitioner i.e., Priya, in some of the documents, caste of forefathers of petitioner is written as 'Koshti'. The learned Counsel submits that in view of a specific entry showing petitioner's forefathers caste to be Koshti, the Committee had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in case of Anandvrs. Committee for Scrutiny (supra), had an occasion to consider the importance of affinity test, while determining the claim of a person belonging to Scheduled tribe. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.18 has observed thus –

18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that 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. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim.

(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater 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. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but,