JUDGMENT :

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Heard Mr. A.P. Kalmegh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent 1 and Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, learned Advocate for respondent 2 at length.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner claims that he is belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe which is recognized at serial 44 in the list of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. However, on 01.11.2022 respondent 1-Scrutiny Committee rejected his caste claim. In support of his caste claim, the petitioner produced seventeen documents of which some documents are pre-constitutional. According to the petitioner, the document – 7 pertains to School Leaving Certificate of his great-grandfather, Sakharam Govinda, document – 8 pertains to daughter born to his great-great-grandfather, Govinda Sonaji and document – 9 pertains to daughter born to great-grandfather, Sakharam Govinda and all these documents referred the caste ‘Thakur’ and the date of entries in Schools showing caste ‘Thakur’ are 14.06.1926, 26.07.1931 and 01.05.1946. However, respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee has ignored these documents and rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner on the ground of affinity test and the area restrictions.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee though considered those documents at serial 4 to 12 and 17 pertaining to father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather and the caste ‘Thakur’ reflects in these documents, however, respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee held that merely mentioning caste ‘Thakur’ in all these documents does not prove that the petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee is completely illogical, perverse and rejection of caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that he failed to establish his affinity test and ethnic linkage towards ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe ignoring pre-constitutional documents are not tenable.

5. Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned order on the point that affinity test is an integral part of determination of the correctness of the tribe claim of the petitioner but, the petitioner failed to prove the said affinity test.

6. We have gone through the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee. On carefully going through the impugned order, it reveals that respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee has not really disputed the existence of documents pertaining to School Leaving Certificate of Sakharam Govinda, entry in Death and Birth Certificates of Govinda Sonaji and Sakharam Govinda which reflect the caste of the petitioner ‘Thakur’ and these documents are pre-constitutional. However, respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee has rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner on the ground of affinity test and area restrictions. Respondent 1 – Scrutiny Committee further observed that the petitioner failed to prove blood relationship in respect of Priti Sunil Chauhan (document at serial 13) which is pertaining to Caste Validity Certificate. So also, the petitioner failed to prove affinity test as per ratio laid down in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995.

7. In the case in hand, it appears that the petitioner produced total seventeen documents in support of his caste claim. The documents 7, 8 and 9 are pre-constitutional and all these documents show the caste of the petitioner’s great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather being ‘Thakur’. Other documents 1 to 6 and 10 to 17 are post-constitutional and all these documents are of the relatives of the present petitioner. Genealogical tree shows that great-grandfather of the petitioner Sakharam Govinda born on 14.06.1926 and one daughter born to Govinda Sonaji (great-great