Sujit Bhausaheb Jagtap v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:32099-DB {1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.13648 OF 2021 Sujit Bhausaheb Jagtap PETITIONER Age - 32 years, Occ - Service R/o Padhegaon, Taluka - Shrirampur District - Ahmednagar At present Railway Police Station Ahmednagar District - Ahmednagar

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 Through its Secretary, 2.

Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, Taluka - Shrirampur District - Ahmednagar 3.

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Through its Member Secretary 4.

The Superintendent of Police (RPF) (Railway) Pune, District - Pune 5.

The Police Inspector (RPF) Railway Police Station, Ahmednagar, District - Ahmednagar .......

Mr. Digambar B. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. P. Dama, AGP for Respondent - State Ms. S. R. Awad, Law Officer, for Respondent No.3 .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.] DATE : 20 th NOVEMBER, 2025

{2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) : 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 2.

This Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges order passed by Respondent No. 3 Committee dated 26th November, 2021, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe. 3.

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned AGP ably assisted by the Law Officer of the Scrutiny Committee. Perused the original record.

4.

In support of his claim, the Petitioner has relied on school leaving certificate of his grand father Eknath Dattatray Thakar, wherein his caste is mentioned as "Hindu Thakar", his date of birth is shown as 01.10.1931 and he took admission in the ZP Primary School, Pachegaon, Taluka - Newasa, District - Ahmednagar on 12.10.1938. Apart from this document, the Petitioner has relied on other documents, which are of recent origin.

5.

The Committee rejected the claim of the Petitioner mainly on the ground that since there are different entries in the record

{3} of the Petitioner's blood relations, namely, "Hindu Maratha" (1968), "Hindu Thakar" (1938, 1977, 1980, 1988, 1997), "Hindu Thakur" (1995), the Petitioner has failed to prove his claim. 6.

Perusal of the record indicates that there is an entry in the school record of the grand father of the Petitioner namely Eknath Dattatray Thakar that he belongs to "Hindu Thakar" caste. His date of birth is recorded as 01.10.1931 and the entry appears to have been taken on 27.06.1940. This document is verified by the Vigilance Cell and the same is referred in the Vigilance Cell report.

7.

Though the record of father of the Petitioner Bhausaheb Eknath Thakar is relied on by the Committee, wherein his caste is mentioned as "Hindu Maratha" (1960), however, we do no find that this document is referred by the Vigilance Cell in its report or during inquiry. Apart from this, this document was not confronted to the Petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee at the time of verification of the claim of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Committee has committed an error in relying on this document while rejecting the Tribe claim of the Petitioner. 8.

Another ground on which the Committee has rejected the claim of the Petitioner is that, though the Petitioner has proved

{4} that there are entries of "Thakar" tribe in the record submitted by him, the Petitioner has failed in affinity test. In view of the decisions in "Anand V/s Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others" 2012 (1) SCC 113 and "Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samity V/s State of Maharashtra and Others" AIR 203 SC 1657, it is by now well settled that affinity test is not conclusive either way and it is not a litmus test.

9.

Since the Committee has erroneously ignored the school record of Eknath Dattatray Thakar, grand father of the Petitioner, which is of pre-constitutional period and therefore has greater probative value, the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

A.

Writ Petition is allowed.

B.

Impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Respondent No.3 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik is hereby quashed and set aside.

C.

Respondent No.3 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik is directed to issue Tribe Validity

{5} Certificate to the Petitioner that he belongs to "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe, within a period of 6 weeks from today. D.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp13648-21.doc