WP2226-21ThakurST.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2021

4.

Suvarna d/o Ganesh Thakur

Age : 19 years, Occu.: Student,

R/o. Chandrama Nagar

Piyush Colony, Bhusawal

Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

...

Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Department of Tribal Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

Through its Secretary

...

Respondents

2.

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee,

Nandurbar Division Nandurbar

Through its Member Secretary.

Mr Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondents-State.

CORAM

: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE

: 4th February, 2021

JUDGMENT (Per Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.):

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned

counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 / Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division,

Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee”) thereby

invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Thakur

Scheduled Tribe”, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Page 1 of 7

WP2226-21ThakurST.odt

3.

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

The petitioner is exploring possibility of admission to professional

course. Her proposal for verification of tribe certificate was referred to the

Committee by the college. The Committee has referred the case to the

vigilance officer for enquiry. The vigilance officer has submitted his report

to the committee. The committee has issued show cause notice to the

petitioner, and in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has

filed her say. It is contended by the petitioner that the committee has

invalidated her tribe claim as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe without

considering the old documentary evidence submitted by her of the years

1943 and 1945.

4.

We have heard Mr.S.C.Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Ms. P. V. Diggikar, learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State.

5.

Mr. Yeramwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that the petitioner has produced old record of the years 1943

and 1945 pertaining to her cousin grandfathers to show that she belongs

to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. The genealogy is not disputed by the

Committee. The committee has discarded the old record and that too of

the pre-independence era without assigning any reason. The Committee

has simply relied upon one entry in the school record, wherein her

father's caste is recorded as 'Hindu Thakur Magas'. Mr. Yeramwar

submitted that 'Hindu Thakur Magas' cannot be said to be a contra entry.

There is no vigilance report of manipulation in the old entries. The

Page 2 of 7

WP2226-21ThakurST.odt

learned counsel submitted that the committee doubted the caste claim of

the petitioner by simply relying on the single entry, which cannot be

termed as contra entry. The area restriction is removed even then the

committee has considered that aspect and turned down the tribe claim of

the petitioner. The affinity test is not a litmus test. To support his

argument, Mr. Yeramwar has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex

Court in case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe

claim and ors. reported in (2012)1 SCC 113. He submitted that the

impugned order passed by the committee is bad in law and liable to be

quashed and set aside.

6.

Ms P. V. Diggikar, the learned A.G.P. for t