Caste validity certificates for blood relatives must yield consistent outcomes when granted following due process, emphasizing the necessity of coherent assessments in caste claims.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP.

2. The caste claim of the Petitioner-Surekha Dinkar Thakar alias Sharada Subhash Shivankar has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee as belonging to ‘Thakar, Scheduled Tribe’. Learned AGP invited our attention to the impugned order. It is submitted by learned AGP that the documents produced on record, especially that of the Petitioner’s grandfather and father indicate that they never projected their caste as ‘Thakar, Scheduled Tribe’. Our attention is invited to the various entries recorded.

3. In our opinion, significant in the present context is the caste validity certificate granted to the first cousin from the paternal side of the Petitioner-Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar. The Scrutiny Committee has in the impugned order referred to the affidavit sworn by Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar dated 12/07/2005 wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner is the first cousin from the paternal side of Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar. There is no dispute in the fact that the Petitioner is a close blood relative of Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar. Our attention is then invited to the findings of the Scrutiny Committee as to why the caste validity certificate of Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar was discarded. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the Committee has to deal with each and every case separately on its own merits taking into consideration the entire documentary evidence as well as the vigilance cell report placed on record.

4. The principal challenge by the Petitioner to the order passed by Respondent No.2-Committee is on the ground that there cannot be inconsistency among the caste of blood relatives from the paternal side and when the Committee itself has granted the caste validity certificate in favour of the first cousin brother of the Petitioner who is Mr. Pramod Sadashiv Thakar after following due process, in the same set of facts and the same set of evidence, it is not open for the Committee to come to a different conclusion. We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner.

5. We draw support from the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2023) 16 SCC 415 in particular paragraph 24 which reads thus :

“24. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued in Madhuri Patil Vs. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 or constituted under the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether the applicant has established that the person to whom the validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and exact relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the Scrutiny Committee concerned after holding due enquiry and following due procedure.”

6. This Court in Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and others , 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401 in paragraph 4 observed thus :

“We have considered