No interference by High Court in case of incontrovertible findings of fact by the caste scrutiny committee: Bombay High Court
Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a particular Caste. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim. This remarkable judgment was recently passed by Bombay High Court in the matter of SHRI VIJAYSING AJABSING PATIL V RESEARCH OFFICER, DISTRICT. CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE [WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 7238 OF 2021] by Honourable Justice K.K.Tated and Justice Abhay Ahuja. Through this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order passed by District Caste Verification Committee, Thane invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner as ‘Rajput Bhamta’. It is the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Rajput Bhamta caste which falls in V.J. category and has therefore submitted proposal for caste verification after which the caste claim of the Petitioner was subjected to inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. Through the Vigilance report it was submitted the petitioner’s caste appeared to be ‘Rajput Bhamta’ and hence the Petitioner was should file a fresh proposal and later received a notice issued by Additional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai that he was called for hearing. Petitioner participated in the said hearing and a request to submit caste validity certificate within a period of 15 days or else suitable action would be initiated against the Petitioner. After submission of documents, scrutiny of documents was directed and issued notice to submit written explanation as the documents were insufficient and inconclusive to prove caste claim. Petitioner submitted that the caste scrutiny committee has noted that the said documents have been verified with the original copy and found to be true and therefore there is no reason why the caste scrutiny committee has not considered the same to grant the caste claim of Petitioner. The Court further observed that “From the Genealogy set out above, Petitioner is the real brother of Suryasing and his father is Ajabsing and grandfather is Waman. His cousin uncle is Narendrasing who is the son of Prakash comes from the lineage of cousin great grandfather Daulat. Thus, it is evident that the caste scrutiny committee has considered the documents that have been submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner’s real brother Suryasing Ajabsing Patil in respect of the caste claim of ‘Rajput Bhamta’ The Court also added that “Petitioner’s grandfather Waman Gulaba Khanderao, the caste has been mentioned as ‘Rajput’. The original record of village form produced by the Tahasildar office before the committee, at that time it was noticed that the caste of the grandfather was mentioned as ‘Rajput’ and not as ‘Rajput Bhamta’.” The Court relied on Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil V/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Department AIR 1995 SC (94) and observed that, “It is obvious that Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue Cast certificate and it is a void certificate.” And also added that “When the Vigilance Squad made enquiry in respect of the said School Leaving Certificate, they noticed that the caste mentioned in the said document is only ‘Rajput’ and not Rajput Bhamta. The entries made in the school and Revenue proofs of the grandfather, submitted by the Applicant along with the Application are from the pre-independence period and the same is very important entries.” Thus, the HC stated that “No fault can be found with the findings of the Scrutiny Committee. Based on clear evidence as recorded in the Impugned Order, we find that Form No.14 in the name of the grandfather as well as the School Leaving Certificates of grand-father refer to the caste as “Rajput” and not “Rajput Bhamta”. Even the father’s School Leaving Certificate mentions the caste as ‘Rajput’ and not ‘Rajput Bhamta’. Real brother Suryasingh’s caste certificate has been invalidated earlier. With respect of the Petitioner’s affinity test, the committee has clearly found that no similarity is seen as per the affinity test given by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing on 10th March, 2021 and the same has not been held to be valid for the Petitioner’s claim to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste.”
 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITIONNO. 7238 OF 2021Shri Vijaysing Ajabsing Patil ] Age 39 years Occ. Service ]R o. At Barrack No. 114 above ]Shani Mandir Road Ulhasnagar No.1 ]Dist. Thane 421 001. ]…PetitionerV s. 1. Research Officer Member Secretary] District. Caste Verification Committee] Thane Room No. 9 and 10 Ground Floor ] Kokan Bhuvan CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai ] Dist. Thane. 2. Divisional Joint Registrar ] Co op. Society Kokan Division ] Navi Mumbai Office at Kokan Bhuvan] 3rd Floor Room No. 308 Navi Mumbai 614]3. The State of Maharashtra] Side Bombay High Court).]…Respondents Mr. Prasad Kulkarni Advocate a w. Mr.C.S. Patil Advocate for thePetitioner. Mrs. S.S. Bhende AGP for the State. CORAM : K.K.TATED AND ABHAY AHUJA JJ. RESERVED ON : 23rd MARCH 2021. PRONOUNCED ON : 08th APRIL 2021. SSP Borey Mugdha 1 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docPER COURT: 1By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking quashing and settingaside the order dated 15th March 2021 passed by Respondent No.1 DistrictCaste Verification Committee Thane invalidating the caste claim of thePetitioner as ‘Rajput Bhamta’. It is the claim of the Petitioner that hebelongs to Hindu Rajput Bhamta caste which falls in V.J. category andhas been granted caste certificate dated 6th August 1993 by the CompetentOfficer. 2Petitioner submitted proposal for caste verification on 4 4 2003vide proposal No.5403 to the Respondent No.1 Committee afterwhich the caste claim of the Petitioner was subjected to enquiry by theVigilance Cell who submitted its report on 25th July 2003. The Vigilancereport is annexed at Exhibit Dof the Petition and also referred to on pages 2 to 4 of theImpugned Order. After submission of documents by the Petitioner Respondent No.1 directed scrutiny of documents and issued notice tosubmit written explanation vide letter dated 5th March 2021 as thedocuments were insufficient and inconclusive to prove caste claim.Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee onSSP Borey Mugdha 3 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.doc10th March 2021 and submitted written explanation after whichRespondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 15th March 2021rejected the caste claim of the Petitioner.8Being aggrieved by the same Petitioner is before us seekingquashing of order of the Respondent no.1 dated 15th March 2021 and forprotection of employment as Junior Clerk with Respondent No.2. 9Learned counsel Shri Kulkarni appearing for the Petitioner hastaken us through the genealogy of the Petitioner which is set out as under :KHANDERAO PATIL| | |Gulab| |Waman|| Narendrasing| | |Suryasing Pritamsing Vijaysing(brother) caste cert. (b) of the Maharashtra ScheduledCastes De notified TribesNomadic Tribes OtherBackward Classes and Special Backward CategoryCaste Certificate Rules 2012 the findings of theVigilance Officer do not bind the Committee nor can it be used as proof insupport of his caste claim.22With respect to the claim of the Petitioner on the basis ofdocuments of blood relatives from father’s side viz. Narendrasing PrakashPatil the purported holder of the caste validity certificate the committeehas found that Petitioner has not submitted any valid revenue documentestablishing the blood relations with Narendrasing Patil. The committeehas also stated that even if the Petitioner had submitted proof establishingblood relation with Narendrasing considering the aforesaid findingswith respect to Grandfather and Father it would not have been possiblefor the committee to issue caste validity certificate to the Petitioner onlyon that basis.23The then committee while considering the case of Petitioner’sbrother Suryasingh has personally verified the original record with respectof village form No.14 issued by the Tahasildar Amalner in the Petitioner’sgrandfather’s name Waman and it has observed that the caste ismentioned as ‘Rajput’ and not ‘Rajput Bhamta’ and the date of birth ismentioned as 9th October 1923. Also in respect of the school leavingcertificate of the grandfather submitted by the Petitioner where the casteSSP Borey Mugdha 9 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docis mentioned as ‘Rajput Bhamta’ date of birth is mentioned as 16th July1923 and date of admission is mentioned as 2nd May 1929 it is stated thatwhen vigilance squad made inquiry in respect of the said school leavingcertificate they have noticed that the caste mentioned in the saiddocument is only ‘Rajput’ and not ‘Rajput Bhamta’. It is stated that theentries made in the school and revenue proofs of the grandfathersubmitted by the Petitioner are from pre independence period and thesame are very important entries.24In this context the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Madhuri Patil V s. Additional Commissioner Tribal DepartmentAIR 1995 SCbecomes relevant. It is observed that “It is obvious thatJudicial Magistrate has no Jurisdiction to issue Cast certiciate and it is avoid certificate. The entries in the school certificate of the father of theappellants Laxman Patil being pre independence period it bears “greatprobative Value” wherein he declared himself to be “Hindu Koli which isnow recognized as a backward class. The Caste affirmation certificate13issued by the samaj Caste Association Consists of these very communitieswho seek to get the status as Scheduled Tribes. It also does not therefore13 bear any probative value school certificates and Collegecertificates in favour of the appellants are the subject of enquiry therefore do not bear any value and independently their status is to be considered.”25With respect to the grievance of the Petitioner that the vigilanceenquiry report dated 25th July 2003 was not considered by the committee we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Respondent ScrutinyCommittee. Moreover even the then Scrutiny Committee had rejected thesaid vigilance report.SSP Borey Mugdha 10 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.doc26It would also be pertinent to quote from the findings of thecaste scrutiny committee in english as per official translation as under : “Point No. 2 : “As per Section 8 of The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes De notified TribesNomadic Tribes other Backward Classes and Special Backward CategoryCaste Certificate Act 2000 the responsibilityof proving the claim is of the applicant. The applicant in support of hisclaim in respect of his caste has submitted belowmentioned documents.1.The applicant Vijaysingh Ajabsingh Patil himself submitted theSchool Leaving Certificate Gen. Reg. No. 10395 20 2 99issued by the Head Master Century Rayon School Shahad Thane tohim. It has been mentioned therein as caste Rajput Bhamta(Maga) place of Birth Jaitpeer Date of Birth 28 7 1981 Date ofAdmission in School 14 6 93. However as the said document ispost the deemed date the said document can not be held valid asproof in support of the applicant s claim in respect of his caste.2.The applicant submitted the School Leaving Certificate bearing Gen.Reg. No. 7915 dt. 11 June 1968 issued by the Superintendent K. E.Society Pratap High School Amalner to his fatherPatil Ajabsingh Waman. It has been mentioned therein as Date ofBirth 10 4 1950 Place of Birth Tal. Amalner. When the VigilanceSquad made enquiry in respect of the said document it has beenmentioned in the said document Date of Admission in School as6 6 1964. Similarly Caste Rajput has been mentioned. However as caste has not been mentioned as Rajput Bhamta in the saiddocument the said document can not be held valid as proof insupport of the applicant s claim in respect of his caste.SSP Borey Mugdha 11 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.doc3.The applicant submitted Village Form No. 14 issued by TahsildarAmalner to his grand father Waman Gulaba Khanderao. It has beenmentioned therein as Caste Rajput Date of Birth 9 10 1923. Afterverifying the original record of the said document and the claim ofthe applicant s real brother Suryasingh Ajabsingh Patil for hebelonging to the caste Rajput Bhamta the then Committee verifieddocumentary proofs in the matter of Suryasingh Ajabsingh Patil anddeclared his claim in respect of the caste Rajput Bhamta as invalid.After perusing the said file the then Committee had informed theTahsil Office Amalner having the custody of the Village Form No.14 which was issued to Waman Gulaba Khanderao by Tahsildar Amalner to remain personally present with the original record before the Committee. In connection therewith on the date20 11 2018 Clerk Shri. Sandeep Patil from Tahsildar Office Amalner was present for the hearing of the Committee. Heproduced the original record of Village Form No. 14 of WamanGulaba Khanderao before the Committee. When the thenCommittee perused the said record it was noticed that caste ofWaman Gulaba Khanderao was mentioned as Rajput and his date ofbirth as 9 10 23 in the roznama. However as caste has not beenmentioned as Rajput Bhamta in the said document the saiddocument can not be held valid as proof in support of the applicant sclaim in respect of his caste. 4) The Applicant has submitted the School Leaving Certificate bearingReg. No. 66 Book No. 1 dated 28th January 2000 of his grandfather Waman Gulaba Patil issued by Central Pre Primary School Jaitpor Tal. Amalner District Jalgaon wherein the cast is mentionedas Rajput Bhamta date of birth is mentioned as 26 7 1923 and dateSSP Borey Mugdha 12 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docof admission in school is 2 5 1929. On making enquiry in respect ofthe said document through Vigilance Squad it is found that in theoriginal General Register of the said document the caste is mentionedas Rajput . Similarly in the Enquiry Report dated 04 03 2021 of theVigilance Squad the date of birth is mentioned as 16 07 1923 anddate of admission in school is mentioned as 02 05 1929. From this itis noticed that the Applicant by submitting bogus fabricated schoolleaving certificate of his grand father having the entry of caste as Rajput Bhamta to the committee has tried to mislead thecommittee. Therefore the said document cannot be held as validproof in support of the claim of caste made by the Applicant.5)The Applicant has submitted the xerox copies of an extract from hisservice book and his father s service book wherein the entrythe findings mentioned and the opinions expressed by theSSP Borey Mugdha 13 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docVigilance Officer whatever it may be will not be binding on theVerification Committee and it is mentioned therein that the samecannot be used as proof in support of the claim for belonging to theScheduled Castes Boudha converted to Scheduled Castes DenotifiedCastes Nomadic Tribes other Backward Classes or Special Backwardcategory. Therefore the report of Vigilance Squad submitted by theApplicant cannot be held as valid proof in support of the claim ofcaste. ….….….….….Point No. 3The Applicant has not submitted the valid Revenue documents establishing the blood relations from father s side with PatilNarendrasingh Prakash the holder of the caste validity certificate andtherefore as the relation of the Applicant does not match with theCaste Validity Certificate holder the said caste validity certificatecannot be held as valid proof. Moreover even if the Applicant had submitted the proofsestablishing blood relation with Patil Narendrasingh Prakash thenalso only after considering the facts mentioned in point No. 2 above it is clarified here that it would not have become possible for thecommittee to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the Applicant only onthe basis of the caste validity certificate of Patil NarendrasinghPrakash.Moreover the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter viz. RajuRamsing Vasave v s Mahesh Devrao Bhivapurkar Civil Appeal No.5308 2008 in paragraph No. 27 has observed as follows: 27. “We do not mean to suggest that an opinion formed by the Committee as regardsthe caste of the near relative of the applicant would be wholly irrelevant. But atSSP Borey Mugdha 14 18(a)...(a...)on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docmentioned in the said document is only Rajput and not Rajput Bhamta. The entries made in the school and Revenue proofs of thegrand father submitted by the Applicant alongwith the Applicationare from the pre independence period and the same are veryimportant entries. In this regard it is mentioned in the Order dated 02 09 1994 of the Hon bleSupreme Court in writ petition No. 5854 1994 Madhuri Patil versus AdditionalCommissioner Tribal Department as under. “It is obvious that Judicial Magistratehas no Jurisdiction to issue Cast certificate and it is a void certificate. The entriesin the school certificate of the father of the appellants Laxman Patil being pre independence period it bears “great probative Value” wherein he declared himselfto be “Hindu Koli which is now recognized as a backward class. The Casteaffirmation certificate issued by the samaj Caste Association Consists of thesevery communities who seek to get the status as Scheduled Tribes. It also does not therefore bear any probative value school certificates and College certificates infavor of the appellants are the subject of enquiry therefore do not bear anyvalue and independently their status is to be considered.”The Applicant has claimed that he belongs to the RajputBhamta Caste. The Applicant has submitted the School LeavingCertificate of father and grandfather and grand father s village FormNo. 14 and in the said documents the caste is mentioned as Rajput .From this it is seen that the forefathers of the Applicant did notbelong to the caste Rajput Bhamta but they belonged to the Rajputcaste and the caste Rajput has not been mentioned in the list ofdenotified castes. Therefore the aforesaid principle of the Hon bleSupreme Court is applicable to this matter From this it is found thatthe Applicant does not belong to Rajput Bhamta Caste.”27No fault can be found with the findings of the ScrutinyCommittee. Based on clear evidence as recorded in the Impugned Order we find that Form No.14 in the name of the grand father as well as theSSP Borey Mugdha 16 18(a).....(a) on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.docSchool Leaving Certificates of grand father refer to the caste as “Rajput”and not “Rajput Bhamta”. Even the father’s School Leaving Certificatementions the caste as ‘Rajput’ and not ‘Rajput Bhamta’. Real brotherSuryasingh’s caste certificate has been invalidated earlier. No documentsin respect of cousin uncle Narendrasing have been placed on record. Withrespect of the Petitioner’s affinity test the committee has clearly found thatno similarity is seen as per the affinity test given by the Petitioner duringthe course of the hearing on 10th March 2021 and the same has not beenheld to be valid for the Petitioner’s claim to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste. Evenotherwise as held in the case of Anand Katole v s. The Committee forScrutiny and Verification of tribe claimMh. L. J.919] theaffinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link ofthe applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Paragraph 22is relevant and isquoted as under: “(ii)While applying the affinity test which focuses on theethnological connections with the scheduled tribe a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago when the tribeswere somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around then the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However with the migrations modernisation and contact with other communities these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended tothat tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribes’ peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits deity rituals customs mode of marriage death ceremonies method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.” SSP Borey Mugdha 17 18 on 08 04 2021 on 13 04 Judgment WPST 7238 21 1.doc28The caste scrutiny committee has also observed that theforefathers of the Petitioner did not belong to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste butthey belong to Rajput caste which has not been mentioned in the list ofdenotified castes. It is also observed by the committee with respect to theaffinity test given by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing thatthere is no similarity seen in respect of the Petitioner with respect to the‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste. The committee has observed that the Petitioner’sgrandfather had studied at Amalner District Jalgaon and his father hasstudied upto 11th Standard and he retired after serving with theGovernment of Maharashtra. The committee has observed that thereforethe forefathers of the Petitioner were highly educated. On the basis of theaforesaid findings the committee has come to a conclusion that thePetitioner does not belong to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste and has declared thecaste claim of the Petitioner as invalid. Considering the aforesaidincontrovertible findings of fact by the caste scrutiny committee we arenot inclined to interfere with the order dated 15th March 2021 of theDistrict Caste Certificate Verification Committee Thane.29Hence the following order:A]The Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. B]All interim orders also stand vacated.[ABHAY AHUJA J.] [ K.K.TATED J.]SSP Borey Mugdha 18 18 