A
GANESH S/O GULABRAO SUROSHE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
MARCH 17, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1976 :
Social status certificat~laimants by caste a 'Thakur~ afoiward caste
C in State of Maharaslzt•a, claiming himself as Schedule Tribe-Scrutiny C-0m-
mittee rejecting the claim holding that claimant was neither a 'Ma 171akur'
nof7l 'Ka 171akur'-Writ of claimant dismissed by High Court-Held Notifica-
tion of the President under Article 342 of the Constitution, subject to tlle
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 1976 is conclusive a11d
final-Court cannot examine, to find out the caste of the party, the basis of
D the certificate issued-The limited area the Court can survey is whether the
caste mentioned in the presidential Notification would be applicable to the
claimant or not High Court committed no eltor waranting interference: Con-
stitution of India, 1950, Article 342.
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2537 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.96 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 703 of 1994.
R.S. Lambat for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
G Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on 22.4.1996 in Writ Petition No.
703/94.
The appellant claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Tribes.
Admittedly, the appellant is 'Thakur' by caste, a forward caste. His
grandfather was shown as a 'Thakur' but not as 'Ka' or 'Ma' Thakur. In
H Maharashtra, 'Ma Thakur' or 'Ka Thakur' are described as Scheduled
1180
1
r
I
-<
GANESH v. STATE
1181
Tribes. The appellant, therefore, claimed the status of a Scheduled Tribe
and made an application to the authorities for issuance of the Caste
Certificate. After due enquiry, the Scrutiny Committee Constituted
negatived the claim of the appellant for status of a Scheduled Tribe.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court which observed out
that the Committee has minutely enquired into the findings and stated
as under:
"This Court Cannot examined the material on record as a Ap-
pellate Authority. If the conculsion reached by the Committee
is possible on the basis of the material on record, then this Court
cannot interfere with the order of the Scrutiny Committee in
exercising of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly it was dismissed."
Shri R.S. Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that
the Scrutiny committee have recorded the finding in paragraph 8 as
under:
"With thi~ end in view the Committee has applied the affinity
test and concluded that the affinity test was negatived. I feel
that the respondent has been giving unduly high stress on the
affinity aspect. It may not be necessary that all Thakur
Scheduled Tribes have an affinity with Ka Thakur or Ma Thakur.
The am plication of this test is some time viewed so mechanically
and arithmetically (eligible) the extraneous factors such as
educational background, social environment, vocational up
bringing etc. which play a map role in the shaping of one's
personality are lost sight of."
A
B
c
D
E
F
It is contended that the conclusion reached on the basis of the
findings of the Committee is not warranted. Therefore, the High Court
would have gone into the question and verified the basis on which the
Scrutiny Committee has scrutinised the claims of the appellant as a 'Ma G
Thakur' or 'Ka Thakur'. It is true, as pointed out by the Scrutiny
Committee, that each case is required to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The notification of the President under
Article 342 of the Constitution, subject to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Act, 1976, is conclusive and final. There are catena of
decisions of this Court holding that the Court cannot examine, to find H
1182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997] 2 S.C.R.
~
A
out the caste of the party, the basis of the certificate issued. The limited
area the Court can survey is whether the caste mentioned in the presiden-
tial Notification would be applicable to the claimant or not. Under these
circumstances, we do not think that the High Court has committed any
error of law warranting interference.
B
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex