The court emphasized the necessity for a holistic review in caste verification cases, re-affirming that findings by state committees should not be interfered with unless procedural irregularity exists.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 03.10.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.8024/2022, whereby the order of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter to be referred as “SLCSC”) rejecting the Scheduled Tribe status of the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter to be referred as “X”) and her brother was set aside and the matter was remanded to the SLCSC on the limited aspect of determining as to whether the people outside the community of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 had also identified them as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, namely, Mising or Miri, or that of their father’s non-tribal community.

The conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge are being extracted herein below for ready reference:-

“76. The impugned order bearing No.KAV TAD/BC/ 790/2020/213 dated 24.09.2021 passed by the SLSC is set aside and quashed.

77. The Petitioners herein have been able to substantiate the following criteria laid down in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika (supra).

(a) The Petitioners have been able to show and prove that the Petitioner No.1 and her brother have been under the care and custody of the Petitioner No.2.

(b) The Petitioners have been able to prove that the Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother did not get any advantageous start in their life being an offspring of an OBC father and a Scheduled Tribe mother.

(c) The Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother having been raised and nurtured since their age of six and two respectively in the community of the mother have automatically suffered the deprivations, indignities, humiliations and handicaps which the Petitioner No.2’s community have suffered and is suffering till date.

(d) The Petitioners have been able to prove that the community of the Petitioner No.2 had accepted the Petitioner No.1 and her brother as members of the community of the Petitioner No.2. The community of the Petitioner No.2 have also identified the Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother as members of the Petitioner No.2’s Mising community.

(e) The aspect as to whether the Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother have been accepted by the other people outside the community of the Petitioner No.2 as belonging to the ST community of the mother is not clear from the records. The reason being that the Enquiry Officer while submitting the Vigilance Report did not take into consideration the relevant aspects while purportedly making enquiry with the persons of locality wherein the Petitioner No.1 and her brother have been raised. It is also seen that had the Vigilance Report being furnished to the Petitioner No.2, she could have provided necessary evidence in respect to prove the said aspect as to whether the people other than the people of the community of the Petitioner No.2 have identified the Petitioner No.1 and her child as belonging to the Petitioner No.2’s community.

78. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded back to the SLSC to decide only on the aspect as to whether the people outside the community of the Petitioner No.2 have also identified the Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother as belonging to the Petitioner No.2’s community or that of their father’s community.

79. This Court further grants liberty to the SLSC to call for another fresh report on the above aspect which have been directed to be considered i.e. whether the people outside the community of the Petitioner No.2 have also identified the Petitioner No.1 as well as her brother as belonging to the Petitione