The invalidation of a caste claim based on irrelevant documents violates principles concerning the consideration of pre-independence evidence in caste verification cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Per – Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner by this petition impugns order dated 15/09/2021, passed by the respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, listed as Entry No.19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed by an order dated 07/04/1997 as Security Guard at the establishment of the respondent No.3, was confirmed for the same post on 13/05/1998, and has served for 24 continuous years.

5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the caste claim of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent No.3 employer, wherein the petitioner submitted various pre-constitutional documents since 1895 establishing that he is belonging to Halba/ Halbi Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.2-Committee relied on three unrelated Koshti entries from the Police Vigilance Cell report and, despite the petitioner’s affidavit denying their relevance and clarifying his Halba status from the maternal side, invalidated his tribe claim on 15/09/2021 using an incorrect affinity test and also for the reason that those entries are not from the paternal side blood relations of the petitioner.

6. For the sake of brevity, the family tree of the petitioner is reproduced below.

7. The documents placed on record by the petioner is enlisted below-

8. It is pertinent to note that certificate of validity has been granted to two of the cousins of the petitioner namely Pramod Damodar Nandanwar and Sanjay Damodar Nandanwar dated 16/04/2013.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following citations:

i) Priya Pravin Parate Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur [2013 (1) Mh.L.J 180].

ii) Writ Petition No 2363 of 2024 Sunil Gunwantrao Headaoo and others VS The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others.

iii) Writ Petition No 1297 of 2022 Ashok Gangadhar Bende VS The State of Maharashtra and others.

10. Per contra the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee contended that the impugned order passed by the Committee is just and reasonable, since the document of 1895 is not proved by the petitioner as the same is in Modi. Further, on perusal of the entries of Koshti in the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell during the enquiry, it proves that the petitioner belongs to Koshti. The learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee seeks dismissal of the present petition.

11. The petitioner has produced as many as seven documents of pre-indendence era. The oldest document is of 1895. It appears that this document was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that it is in Modi and the headmistress of the school given remark that copy of the certificate cannot be issued as the said document is in Modi. The Caste Scrutiny Committee in fact ought to have translated the said entry from the authorized translator/expert, if at all document is in Modi. However, the Committee has not taken any efforts to do the said exercise, nor asked to the petitioner to produce translated entry of that document. In fact, on perusal of the said