The court emphasized the importance of objective analysis and compliance with legal provisions and precedents in determining the validity of Scheduled Tribe claims.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr Shirurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mrs Geeta Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4; and Mr Kochar, learned Counsel holding for Mr Warma, learned Counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties finally by consent.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 12-04-2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar i.e., respondent no.2 and further seeks a direction to respondent no.2 to issue validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe community. An additional prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to take any adverse action against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order dated 12-04-2018.

4. From the above it is evident that the subject-matter of the writ petition is invalidation of the Scheduled Tribe certificate of the petitioner by respondent no.2.

5. Essential facts relevant for adjudication of the lis may be briefly set out at the outset.

6. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe community and in this connection Scheduled Tribe certificate was issued to the petitioner on 24-08-2000 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner Division, Amalner. It was certified that Sunil, son of Hiraman Thakur, resident of Adawad village in the District of Jalgaon belongs to the "Thakur" tribe which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under Sr. No.44 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

7. It is stated that petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak in Sharada Madhyamik School, Kalamsare, Taluka Amalner i.e., respondent no.6 vide order dated 25-07-2004. However, his services were terminated on 09-08-2005 for non submission of validity certificate.

8. Be it stated that the petitioner had applied for verification of his tribe claim as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe community through the President, Kalamsare Vidya Prasarak Sanstha i.e., respondent no.5 on 06-12-2004. As noticed above, because of non issuance of validity certificate, services of the petitioner in respondent no.6 was terminated on and from 09-08-2005. Subsequently, respondent no.2 invalidated the Scheduled Tribe certificate of the petitioner on 12-06-2006.

9. Being aggrieved by such order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5445 of 2006 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 01-04-2014 referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113, more particularly to paragraph 22 of the said judgment and observed that it was incumbent upon respondent no.2 to consider documentary evidence and use affinity test to corroborate the documentary evidence. Affinity test should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. This Court noticed that there was no discussion in the decision of respondent no.2 about each of the documents placed on record by the petitioner and by general observation respondent no.2 neither rejected the documents nor accepted the same. It was merely observed that petitioner was not successful in the affinity test. On that basis claim of the petitioner was rejected. This Court noted that petitioner had submitted as many as 22 documents before respondent no.2, out of which some of the documents were of pre-independence era. Taking the view that approach of respondent no.2 was not justified, decision of respondent no.2 was set aside and quashed. Respondent no.2 was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand (supra). Respondent no.2 was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within one year with the further direction that till such decision was taken, no adverse action should be taken against the petitioner on the ground of non-submissio