POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARAHTRA AND OTHERS

                        [2013] 2 S.C.R. 262


A                POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR
                                  v.
           STATE OF MAHARA~HTRA AND OTHERS
         (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3910 of 2008)

                           MARCH 7, 2013
B
       [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

         Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe - Caste scrutiny -
    Claim of petitioners that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe -
C   Rejected by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee
    - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Documentary
    evidence showed that family members of the petitioners did
    not belong to the 'Thakar Scheduled Tribe' as claimed by
    them - Petitioners deliberately withheld their caste at the time
D   of making application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee
    - The Scrutiny Committee also noticed that the petitioners
    failed in the affinity test as the information supplied by them
    was at variance with the information given by them in Court -
    Documents discovered by the Vigilance Cell relating to local
E   school register clearly proved that the caste of the family
    members and predecessors of the petitioners was recorded
    as 'Bhat', 'Thakar', 'Marathe' and 'Hindu Marathe' -
    Conclusions recorded by the Scrutiny Committee were
    reasonable and fully supported by the material on record -
F    Therefore, conclusions reached by the Scrutiny Committee,
    and affirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be either
    peNerse or based on no evidence.

       Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus Addi.
    Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994) 6 SCC
G 241: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50 - relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:
        1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50         relied on         Para   12

H                                262
    POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR v. STATE OF                    263
               MAHARASHTRA
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave                A
. Petition (Civil) No. 3910 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 08.01.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6674 of
2007.
                                                                    B
                                WITH
SLP (C) No. 11376 of 2010.

  · Naresh Kumar, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Asha Gopalan
Nair for the Appearing Parties.                                     c
     The following order of the Court was delivered by

                             ORDER
     1. Delay condoned in SLP(C) No.11376/201 Q.                    D
      2. Both the petitions are filed by two cousin (sisters)
against the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Region, Pune, (for short "Scrutiny
Committee") in Case No.ICSC/MPSC/Pune-01/2006 decided
on 30th July, 2007 and in Case No. TCSC/SER/PUNE/19/2006            E
decided on 26th March, 2009, whereby the claim of the
petitioners belonging to 'Thakar, Scheduled Tribe' was rejected.
Both the petitioners moved the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay by way of separate writ petitions being Writ Petition
No.6674 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.5231 of 2009, which            F
were dismissed by orders, dated 8th January, 2008 and 4th
November, 2009 respectively. Both the petitioners are relying
on common facts in support of their claim. They are also relying
on the Certificate issued to Dilip Pandurang Pawar, recognizing
his caste to be "Thakar Scheduled Tribe". For the purposes          G
of this order, we shall make a reference to the facts as pleaded
by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2007.

     3. A perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny
 Committee in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6674   H
    264          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   of 2007 would show that she had relied upon the following
    documents in support of her claim:

          "I.     Original and attested copy of caste certificate in
                  respect of applicant showing caste as Hindu
                  Thakar, Scheduled Tribe bearing No.030405248,
B
                  dated 11. 7.2003 issued by the Deputy Collector,
                  {C.F.C. Pune)

          II.     Attested copy of school leaving certificate in respect
                  of applicant wherein caste is shown as Hindu
c                 Thakar and date of admission 02.06.88.

          Ill.    Attested copy of high school leaving certificate in
                  respect of applicant wherein caste is shown as
                  Hindu Thakar and date of admission 12.06.95.
D         IV.     Attested copy of school admission abstract in
                  respect of Laxman Tukaram Thakar (applicant's
                  grandfather) wherein caste is shown as Thakar and
                  date of admission is not recorded.

E         V.      Attested copy of school leaving certificate in respect
                  of Sakharam Tukaram Thakar (applicant's cousin
                  grandfather) wherein 1..aste is shown as Thakar and
                  date of admission 23.08.23.

          VI.     Attested copy of caste certificate showing caste
F
                  as Hindu Thakar, Scheduled Tribe and attested
                  copy of validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny
                  Committee, Pune vide No.TRl/TCSC/Pune-1/2001/
                  2998, dated 19.07.2002 in respect of Dilip
                  Pandurang Pawar (applicant's uncle). Also the
G                 originalaffidavit sworn by Dilip Pandurang Pawar
                  showing the relationship with the applicant.

          VII.    Attested copy of death certificate in respect of
                  Rama Pipalu Thakar (applicant's great grandfather)
H                 wherein caste is shown as Thakar and date of
    . POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR v. STATE OF                    265
~                MAHARASHTRA
              death is 10.12.22.                                      A
      VIII.   Attested copy of death certificate in respect of
              Bakula Korn Tukaram Thakar (applicant's great
              grandmother) wherein caste is shown as Thakar
              and date of death is 21.10.18.                          B
      IX.     Attested copy of death certificate in respect of Banu
              Korn Tukaram Thakar (applicant's great
              grandmother) wherein caste is shown as Thakar
              and date of death is 15.04.39.
                                                                      c
     X.       Attested copy of death certificate in respect of
              Chandri Sap Tukaram Thakar (applicant's father's
              aunt) wherein caste is shown as Thakar and date
              of death is 10.11.17.
      XI.     Attested copy of death certificate in respect of        D
              Parvati Sap Tukaram Thakar (applicant's father's
              aunt) wherein caste is shown as Thakar and date
              of death is 22.11.22.
      XII.    Attested copy of birth certificate showing that one .E
              female child is born to Tukaram .Rama Thakar
              (applicant's grandfather) wherein caste is shown as
              Thakar and date of birth is 19.11.23.

      XIII.   Unattested copy of death certificate in respect of      F
              Babaji Bin Ramu Thakar (applicant's relative
              wherein caste is shown as Thakar and date of
              death is 04.10. 12.
      XIV. Unattested copy of birth certificate in respect of
           Shevanti Tukaram Thakar (applicant's father's aunt) . G
           wherein caste is shown as Thakar and date of birth
           is 11.04.33."

     4. The Vigilance Cell conducted separate enquiries into
                                                                      H
    266        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013) 2 S.C.R.
                                                                       ....
A the claim made by both the petitioners. During the course of
  enquiry, statement of Suryakant Pandurang Pawa·r (petitioner's
  father) in Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007, was recorded on 31st
  January, 2007, in which he stated that:

          "Kuidaivat is Palicha Khandoba, Jejuricha Khandoba and
B
          Rekaidevi. From our family one person use to go to sing
          Banya once in every year at Khandoba of Pali. My mother
          knows to sing 'Banya' in various occasions. The surnames
          in our community are Toraskar, Gavali, Gaikwad, Pawar,
          Shinde, Savant, Bhosale, Londhe, Salunke, Kadam,
c         Chavan etc. The main festivals of our community are
          Divali, Dasara', Gauri Ganpati, Holi, Akshaytrutiya,
          Gudhipadava, etc. There is no dowry system in our
          community. The marriages in our community are
          performed by the Bramhins. I am unaware about
D         Umbarya-Umbari, Pitarya-Pitari, Avanji, Padekhot, Phadki
          etc. customs of our community. In our community, the cows
          milk is extracted and we drink it."

      5. The Vigilance Cell also examined the school admission
E general register is.sued by the He:ad Master, Z.P. Primary
  School, Kudal, Taluka Javali, District Satara, the abstract of
  which reveals the following information:

    "Sr. No.   Reg!.    Name of       Caste   Date of      Relation
               No./     the Student           Admission    with the
F              Book No.                                    Applicant


    1.          15/1     Tukaram Bin Bhat     1.8.1890     Great-
                         RamaThakar                        grand-
                                                           -father
G
    2.         184/1     Hariba Bharu Bhat    5.3.1891     Relative
                         Thakar

    3.         108/1     Hariba       Bhat    10.10.1892   Relative
                         Narayan
H                        Thakar
      POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR v. STATE OF                     267
                 MAHARASHTRA
4.          38/1     Tukaram    Bhat         1.8.1890     Great      A
                     RamaThakar                           grand-
                                                          -father

5.          169/1    Tukaram Bin Bhat        1.8.1890     Great
                     RamaThakar                           grand-
                                                          -father    B
6.          8/2      Ramchandra    Marathe   04.07.08     Cousin
                     Tukaram                              Grand-
                     Pawar                                -father

7.          151/2    Laxman        Thakar    4.1.1918     Relative
                     Tukaram                                         c
                     Thakar

8.          6013     Sakharam      Thakar    23.08.1923   Cousin
                     Tukaram                              grand-
                     Thakar                               -father
                                                                     D .
 9.         354/3    Raghunath     Hindu     25.06.1929   Cousin
                     Tukaram       Marathe                grand-
                     Pawar                                -father

 10.        30/4     Anusaya Ni.   Hindu     10.03.1919   Grandfa-
                     Tukaram       Marathe                ther's     E
                     Pawar                                sister


 11.        32/4     Tara Tukaram Hindu      27.06.1941   Grandfa-
                     Pawar        Marathe                 the r's
                                                          sister''   F
     6. In order to comply with the rules of natural justice, a copy
of the aforesaid vigilance enquiry report was served on the
applicant - petitioner and she was asked to submit her
response to the same. The petitioner was also called for G
personal hearing on 6th March, 2007. The petitioner appeared
before the Scrutiny Committee on 20th March, 2007. In her
response, she stated that :

       "b) The name of the great grandfather has been reflected
                                                                     H
    268        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.
                                                                          ...
A         three times and his caste has been mentioned as Bhat.
          In old records people were identified by the name of their
          caste and it was surname which is used to be written as
          caste. Therefore caste of the great grandfather came to
          be entered as Thakar. However, inadvertently the caste
B         is recorded as 'Bhat'. Save and except this is plated (sic)
          entry specific of my grandfather namely Laxman Tukaram
          Thakar mentions his caste as Thakar."
      7. Although first part of the last sentence does not make
  sense, we presume that she has asserted that 'Bhat' has been
C wrongly stated to be caste of her grandfather. In its order dated
  30th July, 2007, the Scrutiny Committee also noticed in
  Paragraph 5 as follows:.:

          "5. At the time of personal hearing, the applicant has filled
o         in 'Sunavani Patrika' and given following information about
          traits, characteristics, customs and traditions of her
          community:-
          a) Traditional deity of their community is 'Waghdev'
E         b} Kuldaivat of their family is 'Pimpreshwar, Wakadeshwar'

          c) Main festivals of their community are 'Dasara' Holi,
          Divan.

          d) Jat Panchayat of their community is "Padakhot,
F         Jamatganga/Panchayat"
          e) Traditional dance of their community is "Kambad Nach,
          Dhol Nach, Dhamadi Nach, Gauri Nach, Bhondala Nach."'
G        8. Upon examination of the entire material on record, the
    Scrutiny Committee, in both the matters, rejected the claim of
    the petitioners.

          9. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel for the
    petitioners submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not
H
    POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR v. STATE OF                   269
               MAHARASHTRA

justified in ignoring the voluminous· record produced by the      A
petitioners, which pertained to the pre-constitution period
showing that the petitioners belonged to 'Thakar Scheduled
Tribe'. He submitted that as the Committee was not headed
by a Judicial Officer, the High Court ought to have scrutinized
the orders of the Scrutiny Committee with care and caution. The   B
High Court was not justified in ignoring the crucial issue that
the same Scrutiny Committee had verified the cast claim of
Dilip Pandurang Pawar, the paternal uncle of the petitioners,
in both the matters. The Scrutiny Committee without any
justification discarded all the documentary evidence produced     c
by the petitioners on the ground that the oldest record i.e.
school record of Shri Tukaram Thakar, great grandfather of the
petitioners dated 1st August, 1890 recorded his caste as
'Bhat'. The decision rendered by the Committee in both the
cases, being arbitrary, was liable to be set aside.               D
      10. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents, had pointed out that the Scrutiny Committee,
after considering all the documents, decided the claim of the
petitioners. She has made reference to the report of the
Vigilance Officer, which indicated that from 1st August, 1890 E
to 27th June, 1941, the caste of the petitioners' relatives from
paternal side, is clearly recorded as 'Bhat', 'Marathe', 'Thakar',
'Hindu Maratha' and 'Hindu Marathe'. She further pointed out
that the Committee has observed the discrepancy in the
information submitted by the applicant and the applicant's father F
in W.P. No.6674 of 2007 on different days and different places.
The statement made by the father was recorded without any
forewarning, is spontaneous. It has been correctly accepted by
the Scrutiny Committee to be reliable. The Scrutiny Committee
also noticed that, on the other hand, the information given by G
the applicant, at the time of hearing was made upon notice and
after careful thought. The Scrutiny Committee has, therefore, .
observed that it has been made, by making a reference to some
literature, only with an intention to grab the benefits and
cot\c~ssicns available to Scheduled Tribes.                        H
    270        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A        11. We have given careful thought to the submissions of
    the learned counsel.

       12. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to
  notice the observations made by this Court in Kumari Madhuri
B Patil and Another versus Addi. Commissioner, Tribal
  Development and Others [(1994) 6 SCC 241],which are as
  follows:

          "15. The question then is whether the approach adopted
          by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case
C         is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of
          appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which
          is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it
          when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless
          found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject
D         to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The
          Committee when considers all the material facts and
          records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal
          may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings.
          The court has to see Whether the Committee considered
E         all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied
          its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee
          ultimately record the finding. Each case must be
          considered in the backdrop of its own facts."

       13. Keeping in view the ratio above, let us now examine
F the fact situation in the present matters. As noticed earlier, the
  Scrutiny Committee, in both the cases, has noticed that number
  of documents from 1890 to 1941 showing that the family
  members of the petitioners did not belong to the 'Thakar
  Scheduled Tribe', their caste being variously indicated as
G 'Bhat', 'Marathe', 'Thakar' and 'Hindu Marathe', were
  deliberately withheld by the petitioners at the time of making
  the application before the caste Scrutiny Committee. The
  Scrutiny Committee also noticed that the petitioners failed in
  the affinity test as the information supplied by them was at
H
   POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR v. STATE OF                     271
              MAHARASHTRA
variance with the information given by Suryakant Pandurang          A
Pawar, father of the applicant, in Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007.
On a careful analysis of the entire material, the Scrutiny
Committee has concluded that the certificate issued in favour
of Dilip Pandurang Pawar would be of no assistance to the
petitioners as the documents discovered by the Vigilance Cell       s
relating to local school register from 1st August, 1890 to 27th
Jurie, 1941 clearly proved that the caste of the family members
and predecessors of the petitioners was recorded as 'Bhat',
'Thakar', 'Marathe' and 'Hindu Marathe'.

     14. Upon examination of the reasons given by the Scrutiny      C
Committee in both the matters, we are unable to accept the
submissions made by Mr. Sudhanshu Choudhari that the High
Court has committed any error in affirming the decision
rendered by the Scrutiny Committee in both the matters. In fact,
the decision rendered by the High Court would fall squarely         D
within the ratio laid down by this Court· in ihe case of Kumari
Madhuri Patel (supra). The conclusions recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee are reasonable and fully supported by the
material pla~ed on record. Therefore, the conclusions reached
by the Scrutiny Committee, and affirmed by the High Court           E
cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence.

      15. In view of the above, we find no merit in both the
Special Leave Petitions. Accordingly, both the special leave
petitions are dismissed.                                            F

B.B.B.                                         SLPs dismised.