JUDGMENT :

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The Petitioners have challenged orders dated 30.12.2020 and 18.11.2020 passed by the Respondent-Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, invalidating the caste certificate that they belong to Thakur-Scheduled Tribe, which is an entry at Serial No. 44 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950.

3. The Petitioners were issued caste certificates of Thakur-scheduled tribe by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim. The caste claim of the Petitioners was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioners relied upon several pre-constitutional documents as well as the decisions of this Court validating the caste claim of the close family members. The Scrutiny Committee discarded the documents by observing that apart from the Thakur-Scheduled Tribes, there are ‘Thakur’ in other communities and hence, it was necessary for the Petitioners to establish socio-cultural affinity test. It is held that the Petitioner have failed to establish ethnic and racial linkage by way of the social cultural affinity test with existing Thakur-Scheduled tribes in Maharashtra. The committee did not rely upon the previous decisions wherein this Court had validated caste claim of the close family members of the Petitioners on the ground of suppression of material fact that the caste claim of their paternal uncle Vijay was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and the challenge to this order was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002.

4. Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the pre-independence documents furnish a high degree of probative value to prove the caste claim of the Petitioners. He further submits that the caste claim of the close relatives of the Petitioners has been validated by this Court. Hence, the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in discarding the documents and rejecting the claim of the Petitioners.

5. Ms Mehta, learned AGP submits that in the case of Vijay S/o Ramchandra Chavhan (supra), this Court has upheld the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and rejected the Thakur tribe claim of Vijay, the paternal uncle of the Petitioners. This decision was not brought to the notice of this Court and as such the order of validating caste claim was obtained by fraud. She therefore asserts that the said decisions cannot be relied upon to decide the caste claim of the Petitioners.

6. We have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. The records reveal that the Petitioners had produced School Leaving Certificates of their respective fathers, Madhukar Ramchandra Chavhan and Sanjay Ramchandra Chavhan, wherein their caste is recorded as Thakur. The Petitioners had also tendered the extract of School Register of their grandfather Ramchandra of the year 1943, wherein his caste is recorded as Thakur. The extract of the School Register and School Leaving Certificate of their great grandfather Narayan also records his caste as Thakur. The entry dated 23.07.1943 in the birth register shows the caste of Narayan Dajiba as Thakur. Similarly, the extract of the Birth Register of the year 1937 records the birth entry of Narayan, the great grandfather of the Petitioners, wherein his caste is recorded as Thakur. The Petitioners have also tendered birth and death entry in the birth and death register wherein the caste of Dajiba, the father of Narayan, is shown as Thakur.

8. The genuineness of these pre-independence documents was not in dispute. These documents, which have high degree of probative value with a declaration of status of the caste, have been discarded by the committee on the ground that apart from Thakur-Scheduled Tribes, Thakur caste is also found in other communities. The Scrutiny Committee has also observed that the Petitioners are resid