JUDGMENT :

R.N. Laddha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner questions the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee’s decision and order invalidating her tribe certificate belonging to Thakar-Scheduled Tribe. Further, she sought direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue a certificate of validity in her favour.

4. The petitioner claims to belong to Thakar-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was therefore, granted a tribe certificate by the Competent Authority on 3rd October 2018, certifying that she belonged to Thakar-Scheduled Tribe. Being a student, the petitioner was required to submit a tribe certificate for prosecuting higher studies. The tribe certificate of the petitioner was referred for verification to the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee. Before the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner produced several documents, which consisted of pre-constitutional period documents, the certificates of validity issued to her blood relatives and the copies of several orders passed in writ petitions whereby the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee was directed to give validity certificates to the blood relatives of the petitioner from her paternal side.

5. The Respondent-Scrutiny Committee referred the documents for verification to the vigilance cell. In turn, the vigilance cell made the investigation and submitted its report. A copy of the report of the vigilance cell was supplied to her. An opportunity for a hearing was also granted. The Respondent- Scrutiny Committee, after evaluating the documents by an order dated 16th January 2021, rejected the petitioner’s tribe claim. The Respondent-Scrutiny Committee has also recorded that the petitioner failed the affinity test. It is also stated that some contra entries were found during the enquiry.

6. Mr S. C. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the decision of the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner’s cousin uncle namely Arun Sopan Pawar was already quashed and set aside by this Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. According to him, now the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee cannot disregard the same on flimsy ground, stating that some record was not available before the Scrutiny Committee while deciding her tribe claim. The Respondent-Scrutiny Committee has not considered the oldest documentary evidence. It is submitted that the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered the documentary evidence and should have placed greater reliance on pre-independence documents. He further submitted that the affinity test is not the litmus test for establishing the petitioner’s claim with a Scheduled Tribe.

7. According to the learned counsel, it is mandatory to issue a tribe certificate to the petitioner if the validity is already given to his blood relatives. It has been submitted that the tribe validity certificates produced on records of blood relatives have been overlooked.

8. The learned counsel relied on (i) Arun Sopan Pawar v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2122 of 1989 dated 30th October 1996 and (ii) Anand Ravindra Pawar v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7852 of 2019, dated 17th July 2019, in support of his contentions.

9. The learned counsel points out that all the petitioners in the above-cited petitions are blood relatives of the present petitioner and, under orders of this Court, they have been granted tribe validity certificate.

10. Mr A. P. Vanarse, learned Additional Government Pleader, contested the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that in several documents, the blood relatives of the petitioner had been shown as belonging to Maratha and not the Thakar-Scheduled Tribe. In the investigation, as the contra entries are found, the decisions of the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee to invalidate th