ANAND versus COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLAIMS AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 08-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 386 
ANAND 
. 
v. 
COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF 
TRIBE CLAIMS AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6340 of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 8, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance 
C and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 - r. 11 -:- Caste 
Claim - Genuineness of - Determination - Caste certificate 
issued to appellant by Sub-Divisional Magistrate certifying 
that he belonged to 'Ha/bi' Scheduled tribe - Cancelled by 
Caste Scrutiny Committee - High Court affirmed the order of 
D Caste Scrutiny Committee -
Justification - Held: The 
documentary evidence produced by appellant .in support of 
his q/aim was lightly brushed aside by the Vigilance Officer 
as also by the Caste Scrutiny Committee - From the 
documents produced by the appellant, it appears that his near 
E paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging to the 
'Ha/bi' 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 
F 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 Ha/ba to Halba and nothing more -
Neither the Head Master was examined, nor any further 
enquiry w.as conducted to verify the veracity of Head Master's 
G statement - Also, in similar cases involving appellant's first 
cousin and his paternal uncle, the High Court, while obseNing 
non-application of mind by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, had 
decided similar claim in their favour - The documentary 
evidence produced by the appellant was not examined and 
H 
386 
ANAND v. COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND 
387 
VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLA1MS. 
appreciated in its proper perspective and the High Court laid A 
undue stress on the affinity test - The affinity test may be used 
to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be 
the sole criteria to reject a claim - Claim of appellant 
deserves to be re-examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee 
-
Case accordingly remitted back to Caste Scrutiny 
B 
Committee for fresh consideration - Constitution (Scheduled 
Tribes) Order, 1950. 
Appellant was appointed as a field officer by the 
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, respondent No.2, C 
on probation against a post reserved for "Scheduled 
Tribe". The appointment was subject to production of the 
Caste Validity Certificate. 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 D 
Short the 'Rules') . Alongwith the application, the 
appellant submitted several documents, including a copy 
of his grandfather's school leaving certificate; a copy of 
school leaving certificate issued to his father; a caste 
certificate issued to his father; copies of the school 
E 
leaving certificates issued to the appellant; a college 
leaving certificate and a copy of school leaving certificate 
issued. to the real brother of his grandfather. All these 
do.cuments recorded the Caste of those persons as 
'Halbi'. 
F 
Not being i;atisfied 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 
G 
and other enquiry. The Vigilance Officer submitted its 
report inter alia, reporting that the characteristics, as 
noticed during enquiry did not resemble that of 'Halbi' 
Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Cell found that the 
appellant was a member of 'Halbi' sub-caste of the 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 'Koshti' caste but did not belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled 
Tribe. 
A copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was supplied 
to the appellant by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and 
8 personal hearing was also granted. The Caste Scrutiny 
Committee came to the conclusion that the appellant did 
not belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled .Tribe. The caste certificate 
issued by the Competent Authority, viz. the Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate was thus cancelled and confiscated by the 
Caste Scrutiny Committee. The High Court upheld the 
C order of Caste Scrutiny Committee. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
0 
HELD: 1.1. The genuineness of a caste claim has to 
be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.