The probative value of pre-constitutional documents showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors, the requirement for the Scrutiny Committee to record brief reasons before referring a case to the Vigilance Cell, and the importance of considering Tribe Validity Certificates issued to family members by orders of the court and pre-constitutional documents in determining the correctness of a caste or tribe claim.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Ms. P.D. Rane for petitioners, learned counsel Shri Abhijit Deshpande for respondent No. 4 and learned counsel Shri N.S. Autkar for respondent No. 1.

2. By this petition, petitioners take exception to order dated 6.9.2022 passed by respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (the Committee) invalidating tribe claim of petitioners as belonging to caste “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

3. The petitioners are real sisters and they are pursuing their education. They claim to be of caste “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

4. A proposal of petitioner No. 1 for validating her caste claim was forwarded to the Committee along with necessary documents on 7.10.2020. Whereas, a proposal of petitioner No. 2 was forwarded in the year 2020. The petitioners relied upon eleven documents, out of them five documents were pre-constitutional. As per family tree submitted by petitioners, “Balwant” is great-grandfather whose caste is recorded as “Thakur.” There are consistent entries in the name of their forefathers recording them as “Thakur.”

5. Learned counsel Ms. P.D. Rane for petitioners, submitted that as per the family tree, caste of “Balwant” who is great-grandfather of petitioners, was recorded as “Thakur” while recording birth entry of his son on 19.2.1913. As per birth extract, said “Balwant” has two sons viz. “Keshav” and “Digambar” who are also recorded as “Thakur” during pre-independence era. “Keshav’s” son “Bhaskar” is also recorded as “Thakur.” The School Leaving Certificate of another son of “Balwant” viz. “Digambar” also shows belonging to be “Thakur.” Thus, there are consistent entries showing forefathers of petitioners to be “Thakur.” There is no dispute as to the family tree.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Committee referred the claim of petitioners for vigilance. The Vigilance Committee collected some documents showing “Keshav” the son of “Balwant” gave birth to a daughter viz. “Gani” who is recorded as “Bhat” in the year 1953. On the basis of the said entry, the claim of petitioners is invalidated. In fact, after receipt of Vigilance Report, petitioner No. 1 filed an affidavit and explained the documents. The petitioners explained that the said entry is not relating to her family members. The Committee has ignored all pre-independence documents which have probative value and invalidated the claim. In fact, on the basis of the same documents, cousin grandfather viz. “Surendra” and cousin uncle “Sagar” of petitioners were granted Caste Validity Certificates by order of this court in Writ Petition No. 2513/2019 and 1674/2015 respectively. However, the Committee, without considering the same, invalidated the caste claim of petitioners illegally and arbitrarily which is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of her contentions, learned counsel Ms. P.D. Rane for petitioners placed reliance on following decisions:

1. Pravin S/o Madhukar Suryawanshi and Another vs. Vice-Chairman/ Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Others in Writ Petition No. 5891/2022, decided on 12.12.2022

2. Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 (2) Mh. L.J. 785

3. Gaurav S/o Pradeep Wagh vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Others in Writ Petition No. 7815/2022, decided on 15.8.2023

4. Ku. Ekta D/o Ganpatrao Ghodmare vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member, Secretary Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Another, Writ Petition No. 4895/2022, decided on 25.9.2023

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.S. Autkar for respondent No. 1, submitted that there are adverse entries showing that family members of petitioners are recorded as “Bhat.” He placed reliance on birth register extract entry of dated 28.3.1916 showing one “Balwant” was recorded as “Bhat” while registering birth date of his male child born on 27.3.1916. He