The court emphasized that the burden of proof for tribal status lies with the claimant, and reliance on irrelevant documents and misapplication of the affinity test can lead to arbitrary decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Learned A.G.P. waives service for all the respondents.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order dated 24/04/2023, passed by respondent No.3/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule (for short ‘the committee’), in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short ‘the 2000 Act’). By this judgment and order the committee has refused to validate and instead, ordered confiscation and cancellation of the petitioner’s ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe certificate, alongwith initiation of action under Sections 10 and 11 of the 2000 Act.

3. On being appointed as Police Constable from the Scheduled Tribe category on 01/03/1988, the tribe claim of the petitioner, was forwarded by respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police, Mumbai to the scrutiny committee by letter dated 12/08/2013 and the same is finally decided by the order dated 24/04/2023. In the meantime, on 30/09/2022, the petitioner is superannuated and on account of invalidation of tribe claim, his pension and retiral benefits are withheld.

4. By the impugned order, the committee has inferred that the petitioner has failed to establish his tribe claim on the basis of documentary evidence as well as on account of failure to prove affinity with ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe. The committee has opined that in view of the area restriction , the pre-independence era documents, relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be considered.

5. Although the petitioner has based his tribe claim on the pre-independence era of document of his father, the committee has essentially based its decision on the documents of relatives of husband of petitioner’s sister by observing that the documents are contrary to the petitioner’s tribe claim. The committee has drawn inference that the petitioner has failed to disclose those documents and consequently concluded that those documents are determinative. The committee has opined that the document relied upon by the petitioner, being a school leaving certificate of his father, although of pre-independence era, cannot be relied upon, in view of residence of petitioner’s forefathers being not from the scheduled area.

6. Advocate D. B. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the committee has adopted an erroneous and perverse approach in discarding the most important document of school leaving certificate of petitioner’s father Supadu Namdeo Thakur showing his date of birth as 10/08/1930 and date of his admission in school as 07/10/1936. He would submit that this document mentioning caste as ‘Thakur’ has got high probative value and the petitioner’s caste claim ought to have been validated on the basis of this vital document. He would also submit that the committee has committed grave error in relying upon the documents alleged to be belonging to the relatives of the husband of petitioner’s sister, particularly when the petitioner has categorically denied any blood relations with those persons. He would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2018 (5) ALL MR 975], to urge that in view of removal of area restrictions, the most vital document could not be ignored only on account of residence petitioner’s forefathers being not from the scheduled area. He would further submit that in view of the law laid down in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, 2012 (1) SCC 113, affinity test could not be considered to be a litmus test and would demonstrate the perverse approach of the co