The legal significance of pre-constitutional documents and the removal of area restrictions by the amending Act of 1976 in determining tribe claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Laddha, J.-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for parties.

2. These petitions are directed against the decision and order dated 23 July, 2019 of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar (for short “the respondent Committee”), respondent No. 1 in these petitions, invalidating the Caste Certificate dated 21 July, 1979 issued to Amarnath, original petitioner (since deceased) in Writ Petition No. 9625 of 2019 and the Caste Certificate dated 27 June, 1979, issued to Raghavendra, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9611 of 2019, by the Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon, certifying that they belonged to the ‘Thakur, Scheduled Tribe’, notified in terms of the Constitution, (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. Petitioners Amarnath and Raghavendra were real brothers.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts, which led to these petitions, can be summarized as under :

In Writ Petition No. 9625 of 2019 the original petitioner Amarnath (deceased) was appointed as Art A Electrician by the M.S.R.T.C., respondent No. 2 herein, against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe whereas the petitioner Raghvendra, in Writ Petition No. 9611 of 2019 was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector through the competitive examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, against the post reserved for scheduled tribe. Their tribe claims were referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, respondent No. 1 for confirmation of their status as Scheduled Tribe. Both of them had made an application to the respondent Committee under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 and had submitted several documents including the documents of pre-constitutional period and the validity certificate issued to their relatives. The Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the documents for verification to Vigilance Cell, who, in turn, made investigation and submitted its report. A copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell was supplied to them. An opportunity of hearing was also granted. The respondent Committee, after evaluating the documents, by common order dated 23 July, 2019 rejected their tribe claim.

4. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of their tribe claim, they preferred these writ petitions. After the demise of Amarnath, Smt. Rajni, being widow and legal heir of Amarnath is now pursuing Writ Petition No. 9625 of 2019.

5. We have heard Mr. S. C. Yeramwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Manoj Shinde holding for Mr. M. N. Goyanka, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 9625 of 2019.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that several documents were relied upon and though all of them are genuine, the affinity test has been resorted to. It is submitted that the respondent Committee ought to have considered the documentary evidence and should have placed greater reliance on pre-Independence documents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that affinity test is not the litmus test for establishing the link of the petitioners with a scheduled tribe. In support of his broad proposition, reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, AIR 2012 SC 314.

7. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is mandatory to issue caste validity certificate to the claimant if the validity is already issued to their blood relatives. To lend support to this submission reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. It has been submitted that the Caste Validity Certificates produced on record of blood relatives have been overlooked.

8. T