REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6340 OF 2004

ANAND — APPELLANT

VERSUS

COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY &  VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLAIMS & ORS.

— RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  of  the  High Court  of  

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, delivered on      5th May 2004,  

in W.P. No.1687 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court  

has  affirmed  the  order  passed  by  the  Committee  for  Scrutiny  and  

Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati, (for short “the Caste Scrutiny  

Committee”),  respondent  No.1  in  this  appeal,  cancelling  the  caste  

certificate dated 2nd January, 2002, issued to the appellant by the Sub-

Divisional  Magistrate,  Pusad,  District  Yavatmal,  certifying  that  the  

appellant belongs to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled tribe, notified in terms of  

the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

2. Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are  

as follows:

The appellant, who holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (BE),  

was appointed as a field officer by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,  

respondent No.2 herein, against a post reserved for “Scheduled Tribe”, on  

probation with effect from 16th March, 1998.  The appointment was subject  

to production of the Caste Validity Certificate. On a failure to produce the  

same,  respondent  No.2  issued  a  notice  of  termination  of  service  to  the  

appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court by  

way  of  W.P.  No.  4688  of  2003  inter  alia,  praying  for  a  direction  to  

respondent No.1 to decide the caste claim of the appellant.  The High Court  

allowed the writ petition and vide order dated 2nd December 2003, directed  

respondent No.1 to decide the caste claim  of the appellant within  eight  

weeks of the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  Respondent No.2 was  

also directed not to act upon the termination notice.  

3. In furtherance of the said order, the appellant made an application to  

the  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee  under  Rule  11  of  the  Maharashtra  

Scheduled  Tribes  (Regulation  of  Issuance  and  Verification  of)  

Certificate  Rules,  2003  (for  short  “the  Rules”).   Along  with  the  

application,  the  appellant  submitted  several  documents,  including  a  

copy of his grandfather’s  school leaving certificate dated 8th April,  

2

1929; a copy of school leaving certificate dated 6th July, 1955, issued  

to his father, Nilkantha Maruti Katole; a caste certificate issued to his  

father  on  19th June,  1969;  copies  of  the  school  leaving  certificates  

issued to the appellant on  8th May, 1978, 5th July, 1988 and 9th August,  

1983; a college leaving certificate dated 9th July, 1990 and a copy of  

school leaving certificate issued to the real brother of his grandfather  

on 21st June, 1933 etc.   All  these documents recorded the Caste of  

those persons as ‘Halbi’.

4. Not being satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the  

appellant, the Caste Scrutiny Committee forwarded the application to  

the Vigilance Cell in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Rules for conducting  

school, home and other enquiry.  The Vigilance Officer interviewed  

the  appellant,  collected  information  about  the  characteristics  of  his  

caste, which included information in relation to his family’s ancestral  

profession;  mother  tongue;  family  idols  and  deities  etc.  and  also  

verified  the  school  records  of  his  relatives.   On  the  basis  of  the  

information so collected, the Vigilance Officer submitted its  report  

inter alia,  reporting that the characteristics, as noticed during enquiry  

did not resemble that of ‘Halbi’  Scheduled Tribe.  In so far as the  

documentary evidence was concerned, referring to the school record  

of the maternal brother of his father and aunt of the appellant, which  

3

showed that as on 13th June, 1958 and 1st June, 1953, their caste was  

recorded  as  ‘Koshti  (which  is  scored  off)  Halba’  (Koshti),  the  

Vigilance  Officer  submitted  a  report  unfavourable  to  the  appellant.  

The Vigilance Cell found that the appellant was a member of ‘Halbi’  

sub-caste  of  the  ‘Koshti’  caste  but  does  not  belong  to  ‘Halbi’  

Scheduled Tribe.

5. A copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was supplied to the appellant by  

the Caste Scrutiny Committee and personal hearing was also granted.  

By order dated 20th March, 2004, the Caste Scrutiny Committee came  

to  the  conclusion  that  the  appellant  does  not  belong  to  ‘Halbi’  

Scheduled  Tribe.   The  caste  certificate  issued  by  the  Competent  

Authority, viz. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,  

was thus, cancelled and confiscated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,  

inter alia observing as follows:-

“B. The documents quoted at Sr. No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 26, 28 &  33 are school records in respect of relative of the candidate in  which Caste is recorded as Halbi.  In view of enquiry report,  documents collected by enquiry  office  and affinity test  these  documents are rejected.

G. The document quoted at Sr. No.17,19,21, 22, 23, 24 & 34  are  the  Xerox  copies  of  validity  certificates  in  respect  of  relatives of the candidate.  The ratio of this Validity Certificate  cannot be given to the candidate because the concerned person  at  that  time  may  have  deliberately  suppressed  to  bring  information now found out by the Inquiry Officer.  Thus where  there is material suppression of facts, ratio of such order cannot  be  applied   to  other.   As  directed  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  

4

Court,  each  and  every  case  should  be  decided  on  its  own.  Hence in the light of Vigilance Cell Report, this document is  rejected.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

 11. The candidate’s mother tongue is Marathi which is not so  in  Halbi,  Scheduled  Tribe.   The  Surnames  of  relatives  from  their community are reported as Katole, Parate, Naike, Dhakte,  Sorate,  Nandarwar,  Kumbhare  etc.   These  surnames  are  not  associated with the people belonging to Halbi, Scheduled Tribe.  The  information  about  family  &  community  deities  do  not  resemble with Halbi, Scheduled Tribe.  The marital ceremonies,  ceremonies  observed  after  birth,  rites  performed  after  death,  customary dances,  great  personalities  within their  community  etc.  as  stated do not  resemble with  that  of  Halbi,  Scheduled  Tribe.  Thus, in view of this information, candidate failed to  establish his affinity towards Halbi Scheduled Tribe.”

6. It is manifest that the claim of the appellant was rejected mainly on the  

ground  that  he  had  failed  to  establish  his  affinity  towards  ‘Halbi’  

Scheduled Tribe.

7. Being  aggrieved  with  the  said  order,  the  appellant  once  again  

approached the High Court by preferring W.P. No.1687 of 2004. As  

aforesaid, the High Court vide impugned judgment upheld the order of  

Caste Scrutiny Committee, observing thus :  

“In so far as the documents are concerned, it is true that most  of the documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner  do  (sic)  state  the  caste  as  Halbi  but  that  by  itself  is  not  sufficient to uphold the caste claim of the petitioner unless the  petitioner is able to establish his ethnic linkage with the so- called Scheduled Tribe.  The Research Officer and Member of  the Caste Scrutiny Committee interviewed the petitioner on  

5

these aspects and it was found that the petitioner was not able  to satisfy the Scrutiny Committee on this aspect of the matter.  The  particulars  furnished  by  the  petitioner  claiming  to  be  belonging to caste Halbi Scheduled Tribe do not match with  the  characteristics,  traits,  customs,  ethnic  linkage  on  anthropological  enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner.  Therefore,  though the  petitioner  is  in  possession  of  certain  documents  even  of  prior  to  the  Presidential  notification  showing the caste claim of his relatives as Halbi, the same are  not  enough  to  certify  him  as  belonging  to  caste  Halbi  Scheduled Tribe.  In the order, it has been observed by the  Scrutiny Committee  that in some parts of Vidarbha the old  M.P. Region, in old records the Sub Caste Halbi of the caste  Koshti  is  recorded  as  Halbi  which  is  popularly  known  as  Halba Koshti and, therefore, this cannot be treated as such.”

8. Thus, according to the High Court also, unless an applicant establishes  

his ethnic linkage with a Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim cannot be  

accepted merely on the strength of documentary evidence.

9. Hence the present appeal.

10. Assailing  the  impugned judgment,  Mr.  V.A.  Mohta,  learned  senior  

counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended  

that  the  report  of  the  Vigilance  Cell,  on  which  the  Caste  Scrutiny  

Committee had placed heavy reliance, was vitiated because they failed  

to take into consideration the vital documents, which included school  

leaving  certificate  relating  to  appellant’s  grand-father  issued  in  the  

year 1929.  According to the learned counsel, these documents clearly  

show that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe ‘Halbi’. It was  

urged that the High Court also fell  into the same error by ignoring  

6

these documents  and by solely applying the affinity test.   Drawing  

support  from  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Sayanna  Vs.  State  of   

Maharashtra & Ors.1, learned counsel submitted that in the light of  

the  documents  showing that  all  the  close relatives  of  the  appellant  

were  treated  as  belonging  to  ‘Halbi’  Scheduled  Tribe,  appellant’s  

claim  could  not  be  negatived  on  the  sole  ground  that  he  did  not  

possess the basic characteristics, knowledge of customs and culture of  

the said tribe.  In aid of the proposition that probative value of all the  

documents ought to have been taken into consideration by the Caste  

Scrutiny Committee as also the High Court, reliance was placed on the  

decision of this Court in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure Vs. State of   

Maharashtra & Ors.2.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Caste Scrutiny  

Committee, supporting the decision of the High Court, submitted that  

in the light of the dictum of this Court in  Kumari Madhuri Patil &  

Anr.  Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.3, neither  

the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor the High Court committed any error  

or illegality in relying upon the affinity test for invalidating the claim  

of the appellant.  It was asserted that having regard to the findings by  

the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which in turn, were based on Vigilance  

1 (2009) 10 SCC 268 2 (1996) 3 SCC 685 3 (1994) 6 SCC 241

7

Cell’s report, which took into account the ethnological perspective, the  

impugned judgment cannot be faulted with.  

12. Thus, the question that falls for consideration is what parameters are  

to be applied in determining whether an applicant belongs to a notified  

Scheduled Tribe?

13. Article  342 of the Constitution of India empowers the President  of  

India to specify the tribes or  tribal  communities  or  parts  or  groups  

within  them  which  shall  for  the  purposes  of  the  Constitution  be  

deemed  to  be  Scheduled  Tribes  in  relation  to  a  State  or  a  Union  

Territory, as the case may be.  Under clause (2) of Article 342, the  

power  to  include  in  or  exclude  from the lists  of  Scheduled Tribes  

specified in a notification, issued under clause (1) of Article 342 of the  

Constitution,  vests  in  the  Parliament.   In  exercise  of  the  powers  

conferred by Article 342 of the Constitution, the President issued an  

order, called the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.  This  

was followed by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order  

(Amendment) Act, 1956.  In the year 1976, the Parliament enacted the  

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  Order  (Amendment)  Act,  

1976.  Part IX of the Third Schedule to the Amending Act specifies  

Scheduled Tribes for the State of Maharashtra.  One of the Scheduled  

Tribes so specified therein is “Halba”, “Halbi”.   

8

14. In Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), this Court took note of the fact that  

the benefit of reservation of seats in educational institutions, and other  

appointments were being denied to the genuine tribals on the basis of  

false caste certificates.  Terming such caste claims as “pseudo status”,  

the  Court  observed that  spurious tribes  had become a threat  to the  

genuine tribals.   Emphasising the need to ensure that the benefit of  

reservation  must  be  made  available  only  to  genuine  persons,  who  

belong to the notified caste or tribe, the Court said that such claims  

should be judged on legal and ethnological basis.  Highlighting the  

relevance of affinity test while considering a caste claim, the Court  

observed thus:  

“The  anthropological  moorings  and  ethnological  kinship  affirmity (sic) gets genetically ingrained in the blood and no  one would shake off from past, in particular, when one is  conscious of the need of preserving its relevance to seek the  status of Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste recognised by  the  Constitution  for  their  upliftment  in  the  Society.  The  ingrained  Tribal  traits  peculiar  to  each  tribe  and  anthropological features all the more become relevant when  the social status is in acute controversy and needs a decision.  The  correct  projectives  furnished  in  pro  forma  and  the  material  would  lend  credence  and  give  an  assurance  to  properly  consider  the  claims  of  the  social  status  and  the  officer or authority concerned would get an opportunity to  test the claim for social status of particular caste or tribe or  tribal  community  or  group or  part  of  such caste,  tribe  or  tribal  community.  It  or  he  would  reach  a  satisfactory  conclusion on the claimed social status.”

9

15. Again in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. Vs. Laveti   

Giri & Anr.4,  while reiterating the guidelines laid down in  Kumari  

Madhuri Patil  (supra), this Court observed that it was high time that  

the Government of India should have the matter examined in greater  

detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines  

and rules  prescribing penal  consequences on persons who flout  the  

Constitution and corner the benefits reserved for the real tribals, etc.,  

so  that  the  menace  of  fabricating  records  to  gain  unconstitutional  

advantages could be prevented.

16. In the light  of  the aforesaid observations,  the State  of Maharashtra  

enacted  the  Maharashtra  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes,  De-

notified  Tribes,  (Vimukta  Jatis),  Nomadic  Tribes,  Other  Backward  

Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and  

Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short “the Act’).  The  

Act made statutory provisions for verification and scrutiny of caste  

claims by the  Competent  Authority  and subsequently  by  the  Caste  

Scrutiny Committee.  In exercise of its rule making power under the  

Act, the State notified the Rules laying down a complete procedure for  

obtaining and verification of Scheduled Tribes Certificate.  Therefore,  

insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, the verification and  

grant  and/or  rejection  of  Scheduled  Tribe  Certificate  by  the  Caste  4 (1995) 4 SCC 32

10

Scrutiny Committee has to be as per the procedure prescribed in the  

Rules.  

17. Rule 11(2) enumerates a list of documents to be filed along with the  

application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.  Rule 12 prescribes the  

procedure to be followed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on receipt  

of such application in the prescribed format.  It provides that if the  

Caste  Scrutiny  Committee  is  not  satisfied  with  the  documentary  

evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the application to  

the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry.  

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 requires the Vigilance Officer to visit the local  

place of  residence and the original  place from where  the applicant  

hails and usually resides.  The rules further stipulate that the Vigilance  

Officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts about the social  

status claimed by the applicant or his parents or guardians, as the case  

may be.  He is also required to examine the parents or the guardians or  

the applicant for the purpose of verification of their tribe.  It is evident  

that the scope of enquiry by the Vigilance Officer is broad-based and  

is  not  confined  only  to  the  verification  of  documents  filed  by  the  

applicant  with  the  application  or  the  disclosures  made  therein.  

Obviously, the enquiry, supposed to be conducted by the Vigilance  

Officer, would include the affinity test of the applicant to a particular  

11

tribe to which he claims to belong.  In other words, an enquiry into the  

kinship and affinity of the applicant to a particular Scheduled Tribe is  

not alien to the scheme of the Act and the Rules.  In fact, it is relevant  

and germane to the determination of social status of an applicant.  We  

are of the view that for the purpose of examining the caste claim under  

the  Rules,  the  following  observations  of  this  Court  in   Kumari  

Madhuri Patil (supra), still hold the field:-

“…The  vigilance  officer  should  personally  verify  and  collect  all  the facts of the social  status claimed by the  candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be.  He  should  also  examine  the  school  records,  birth  registration, if any. He should also examine the parent,  guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or  such  other  persons  who have  knowledge  of  the  social  status of the candidate and then submit a report  to the  Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in  the  pro  forma,  in  particular,  of  the  Scheduled  Tribes  relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological  traits,  deity,  rituals,  customs,  mode  of  marriage,  death  ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the  castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.”

18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the genuineness  

of  a  caste  claim  has  to  be  considered  not  only  on  a  thorough  

examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but  

also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and  

ethnological traits etc., of the applicant.  However, it is neither feasible  

nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied  

12

mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the  

following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a  

caste claim:

(i) While  dealing  with  documentary  evidence,  

greater  reliance  may  be  placed  on  pre-

Independence documents because they furnish  

a  higher  degree  of  probative  value  to  the  

declaration of status of a caste, as compared to  

post-Independence  documents.  In  case  the  

applicant  is the first  generation ever to attend  

school,  the  availability  of  any  documentary  

evidence becomes difficult, but that  ipso facto  

does not call for the rejection of his claim. In  

fact the mere fact that he is the first generation  

ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in  

favour of the applicant may be given. Needless  

to  add  that  in  the  event  of  a  doubt  on  the  

credibility of a document, its veracity has to be  

tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which  

an  opportunity  has  to  be  afforded  to  the  

applicant;

(ii) While  applying  the  affinity  test,  which focuses  

on  the  ethnological  connections  with  the  

scheduled  tribe,  a  cautious  approach  has  to  be  

adopted.   A few decades  ago,  when  the  tribes  

were  somewhat  immune  to  the  cultural  

development happening around them, the affinity  

13

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 to that  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.  

19. Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the  

applicant. He has to produce all the requisite documents in support of  

his claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of  

verification  of  the  claim  and  therefore,  can  only  scrutinise  the  

documents  and  material  produced  by  the  applicant.  In  case,  the  

material  produced  by  the  applicant  does  not  prove  his  claim,  the  

14

Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his  

claim.

20. Having examined the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid  

broad parameters, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant  

has  not  been  examined  properly.   We  feel  that  the  documentary  

evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim had been  

lightly brushed aside by the Vigilance Officer as also by the Caste  

Scrutiny Committee.  Insofar as the High Court is concerned, it has  

rejected the claim solely on the basis of the affinity test.  It is pertinent  

to  note  that  some  of  these  documents  date  back  to  the  pre-

Independence  era,  issued  to  appellant’s  grandfather  and  thus,  hold  

great probative value as there can be no reason for suppression of facts  

to claim a non-existent benefit to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe at that  

point  of  time.  From  the  documents  produced  by  the  appellant,  it  

appears that his near paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging  

to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Officer’s report does  

not indicate that the documents produced by the appellant in support  

of his claim are false. It merely refers to the comments made by the  

Head  Master  with  reference  to  the  school  records  of  appellant’s  

father’s maternal brother and his aunt, which had been alleged to be  

tampered with, to change the entry from Koshti Halba to Halba and  

15

nothing more. Neither the Head Master was examined, nor any further  

enquiry  was  conducted  to  verify  the  veracity  of  Head  Master’s  

statement.  It  is  of  some importance to note at  this  juncture  that  in  

similar cases, involving appellant’s first cousin and his paternal uncle,  

the High Court, while observing non-application of mind by the Caste  

Scrutiny Committee, had decided a similar claim in their favour.  We  

are  convinced  that  the  documentary  evidence  produced  by  the  

appellant was not examined and appreciated in its proper perspective  

and the High Court laid undue stress on the affinity test.  Thus, the  

decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel and confiscate the  

caste certificate as well as the decision of the High Court, affirming  

the said decision is untenable.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that  

the claim of the appellant deserves to be re-examined by the Caste  

Scrutiny Committee.  For the view we have taken on facts in hand, we  

deem it unnecessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar.   

21. Resultantly,  the  appeal  is  allowed;  the  decisions  of  Caste  Scrutiny  

Committee and the High Court are set aside and the case is remitted  

back  to  the  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee  for  fresh  consideration  in  

accordance with the relevant rules and the aforesaid broad guidelines.  

22. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

16

………………………………….J.  (D.K. JAIN)

                                         ………………………………….J.    (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 8, 2011.

ARS

17