1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5103 OF 2008 1. Deepali Kashinath Gaikwad 2. Chetan Kashinath Gaikwad Baburao Dagdu Gaikwad Progressive building, Room No.325, Opp Ganesh Talkies, Chinchpokali, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 .. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane Through its Member Secretary, Vartak Nagar Ward Office, Opp. Kores Company, Wagale Estate, Thane(West), Dist. Thane. 3. Sub Divisional Officer Thane Sub Division, Dist. Thane .. Respondents Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioners Mr. A. H. Palekar, AGP for the respondents CORAM:V. C. DAGA, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED: 6th March, 2009 2 ORDER (Per Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 29th March, 2008 passed by the Respondent No.2- Committee invalidating the caste certificates of the petitioners belongs to Mahadeo Koli- Scheduled Tribe (S.T.), in the present petition. 2. Factual Matrix : The Petitioners have claimed that they belong to Mahadeo Koli caste which falls under Scheduled Tribe. In school leaving certificate of father of the petitioners dated 20.6.1956, Mahadeo Koli is recorded. The petitioners' caste in the school register is recorded as Mahadeo Koli and the competent authority has granted caste certificates to the petitioners certifying that they belong to Mahaeo Koli tribe which is recognised as Schedueld Tribe. With an intention to go for higher education from reserved category of S.T., the petitioners have moved Respondent No.2 Committee for verification of their caste certificates. The Police Inspector of the Vigilance cell had examined the school record in respect petitioners, their aunts Rukhmini, Kumudini, Vasanti, uncle- Harischandra, and father Kashinath Balwant Gaikwad. In respect of aunts of the petitioners- Rukmini, Vasanti, and uncle Harischandra the school record shows their cast as Hindu Maratha. 3. Thereafter, the scrutiny committee issued show cause notice to the petitioners calling their explanation in respect of school entries of their uncle showing caste as Maratha to which the petitioners' father replied extensively. The Respondent No.2 3 Committee relied upon the entries in the school record of uncle and aunts of the petitioners as Hindu Maratha invalidated their caste certificates, vide orders dated 30.6.2006 and 30th March, 2007. The Petitioners have challenged the said decisions of the committee in writ petition Nos. 1890 of 2006 and 4622 of 2007 before this Court. In writ petition No. 1890/06 against order dated 30.6.2006 this Court directed the committee to consider the report of Research Officer and also the documentary evidence and to pass appropriate orders according to law and in the second Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2007 filed against order dated 30th March, 2007, was disposed of by remitting the matter with direction to the Respondent Committee to consider the matter afresh. Thereafter, vide order dated 30th March, 2008, the Respondent Committee again invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners observing that the caste of the petitioners' elder aunts and uncle is recorded as Maratha in the primary school record of 1939 to 1945 are of the period prior to proclamation of first presidential order which carries greatest probative value. Hence this petition. 4. Submissions : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners belong to Mahadeo Koli which falls under Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the Respondent no.2 committee totally ignored the observations of this Court while remanding W. P. No. 4622/2007 that tribal traits and characteristics disclosed by the petitioners relate to Mahadeo Koli tribe. The school record of the father of the petitioner and aunt showing tribe as Mahadeo Koli was not considered by the 4 Committee. It is argued that enquiry officer found two entires in respect of father and aunt as Mahadeo Koli, the respondent committee should have given weightage to those entries by applying affinity test. The respondent No.2 has not applied the affinity test when there is controversy in the documents and which had been answered by the father of the petitioners. So, contending that the decision of the committee is arbitrary, the petitioners prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.3.2008 with direction to the Respondent No.2 committee to issue Caste validity Certificates in favour of the petitioners as belonging to Mahadeo Koli- Scheduled Tribe. 5. The Respondents have filed affidavit in reply denying the submissions and contentions of the petitioners. It was contended that the claim of the petitioners was rightly invalidated by the committee vide order dated 29.3.2008. It was submitted that the entries in the school record of aunts and uncle as Hindu Maratha are old record pertaining to the period prior to passing of the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order of 1950. It was argued that the petitioners are Hindu Maratha and they don't fall in Scheduled tribe and, hence this petition be dismissed. 6. Consideration : Heard learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused impugned order and all the relevant documents. In the present petition, the Vigilance officer has submitted report in favour of the petitioner with regard to anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, customs mode of marriage ceremony, method of bu.rial etc. However, the 5 Committee has not given weightage to this report while deciding the caste claim of the petitioners and has totally relied on the birth record of the paternal uncle and aunts of the petitioners. On this point, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on the ruling in the case of Varsha Ramsingh Ghanvat Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 (4) Mh. LJ 676, in which it is held that while assessing the traits and characteristic of the caste, statement of the relatives of the claimants cannot be expected to be cent percent accurate. However, in the present matter the Scrutiny Committee has not expressed any dissatisfaction about the inaccuracy of the information supplied about the trait and characteristics of Mahadeo Koli tribe. Hence, the said judgement is not of any help to the petitioners. 7. In all 12 documents were submitted by the petitioners before the Scrutiny Committee and those documents were issued/prepared after 1995. It is settled position that old record is more authentic and true record as the roots of the family are traced in old entries. It is also to be noted that if the documents are issued or entires are made prior to passing of Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950, then it carries higher probative value to determine the caste claims. Extracts of the School registers of the father of the petitioners and his four siblings disclosing dates of birth and the caste are produced before the Scrutiny Committee. One uncle and two aunts of the petitioners are born prior to 1950 i.e. 1939, 1942 and 1945 and the entries disclose their caste as Hindu Maratha. However, the father and 6 one aunt of the petitioners born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and their caste is shown as Hindu Mahadeo Koli. 8. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly given more weightage to the three entries of prior to 1950 as Hindu Maratha. There is no answer as to why Hindu Maratha was entered as caste in the record of one uncle and two aunts of the petitioners. The change in the caste from Hindu Maratha to Hindu Mahadeo Koli occurred after the constitutional (Scheduled Tribe )Order 1950. Thus, the documentary evidence is more authentic than the information supplied by the petitioners and the report submitted by the Vigilance Officer. While furnishing such information, possibility of suppression or alteration or narration of false facts cannot be overruled. On the other hand the school record disclosing date of birth and caste is found more truthful and accurate. 9. In view of this circumstance mentioned above, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect. It need not be interfered with. Apart from this, this Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to re- appreciate the evidence once again unless any perversity is shown. No such thing is brought to our notice. The view taken by the Scrutiny committee is reasonable and possible view based on the evidence on record. In the result, the petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 7 ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (V. C. DAGA, J.) jpc/-