PRAVIN SON OF LAXMIKANT PISEversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

                                                         22. WP 9693-2007.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO.9693 OF 2007

Pravin Son of Laxmikant Pise                      )
Aged about 35 years, occ. Service                 )
R/o. Shaniwarpura, Akot, Tq. Akot                 )
District Akola                                    )…. Petitioner
          Versus
1. The Deputy Director of Education,              )
Amravati Region, Walgaon Road,                    )
Amravati.                                         )

2. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification    )
of Tribe Claim, Amravati                    )… Respondents
                                 …..
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w Mr. Priyanka Shaw for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. P.M. Joshi, A.G.P. for
Respondents.
                                 …..
                            CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
                                       SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                 DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026
P.C.

1.            The caste claim of the Petitioner as Thakur Scheduled Tribe

has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by the impugned

order. In the earlier round of litigation, the Scrutiny Committee had

invalidated the Schedule Tribe claim of the petitioners by an Order

dated 27th January, 2003. The said Order was challenged before this

RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                       1/5
                                                       22. WP 9693-2007.doc

Court by way of Writ Petition No. 617 of 2003. While remitting the

matter back to the Scrutiny Committee, this Court has observed that

the Scrutiny Committee has transgressed its jurisdiction in rejecting

the claim of the Petitioner despite the finding that the documents in

question shows that he belongs to the Thakur Tribe.       Therefore, in

order to facilitate a fresh Order being passed by the Scrutiny

Committee, the impugned Order dated 13th January 2003, was

quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to pass

a fresh Order after hearing the Petitioner.        In the light of the

judgments referred to, a fresh Order was passed, which is impugned

herein.


2.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

We have perused the impugned Order. The Scrutiny Committee

though notes, that there are pre-constitutional documents which

show the entries of caste of the Petitioner as ‘Thakur’, it goes on to

record that it is not clear that those entries are of Thakur Castes, or

Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee, then proceeds to

observe that the Thakur/Thakar word is found in various categories

and therefore, it is difficult to determine that the candidate belongs



RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                     2/5
                                                                22. WP 9693-2007.doc

to Thakur Caste or Thakur Tribe only on the basis of documentary

evidence. It is in this view of the matter, that the affinity test was

referred to.


3.        It is well settled that the affinity test is not a final litmus test. It

is also well settled that documents of pre-Constitution era are of

highest probative value in the eyes of law. Even the Scrutiny

Committee has found that there are several pre-constitutional

documents which indicate that the caste of the Petitioner is recorded

as Thakur. It was only because the Scrutiny Committee was not sure

that the candidate belongs to Thakur Caste or Thakur Tribe, that the

affinity test was applied.             The Supreme Court in Maharashtra

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarankshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.[2023 SCC OnLine SC 326] in para 20 has observed that :-


                “It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases
                the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance
                Cell.   One of the tests is as laid down in the case of
                Kumari Madhuri Patil1. It lays down that the documents
                of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the
                applicant and their ancestors have got the highest
                probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to


1    (1994) 6 SCC 241


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                              3/5
                                                               22. WP 9693-2007.doc

                produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre-
                Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal
                community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior
                to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes
                included in the ST order. In such a case, a reference to
                Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all.”


4.        There is no dispute that the documents produced on record are

authentic and genuine. The same have been verified by the Scrutiny

Committee. In the documents the Caste is recorded as Thakur, the

list of the documents clearly show that the entry Thakur has been

included in the Schedule Tribe.               The Scrutiny Committee in our

opinion was not justified in invalidating the Caste claim of the

petitioner. Hence, we pass the following Order :-


                                     :ORDER:


        (i) Writ Petition is allowed.


        (ii) The Order dated 16th June 2004, passed by the
                Committee For Scrutiny And Verification of Tribe
                Claims, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside.


        (iii) It is declared that the Petitioner belongs to the
                Thakur Scheduled Tribe.



RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                             4/5
                                                           22. WP 9693-2007.doc

        (iv) The certificate of validity be issued in favour of the
                Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date
                of communication of this Order.


5.        Writ Petition is disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                             (M.S. KARNIK, J.)




RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                         5/5