S/O Gulabrao Suroshe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors  INS 301 (17
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Leave granted.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, made on 22.4.1996 in Writ Petition No.703/94.
appellant claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Tribes. Admittedly, the
appellant is 'Tahkur' by caste, a forward caste. His frandfather was shown as a
'Thakur' but not as 'Ka' or Ma' Thakur. In Maharashtra, 'Ma Thakur' or 'Ka Thakur' are described as Scheduled 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:
Court cannot examined the material on record as an Appellate Authority. If the
conclusion reached by Committee is possible on the basis of the material on
record, then this Court cannot interfere 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:
this end in view the Committee has applied the affinity test and concluded that
affinity test was negatived. I feel that the respondent has been giving unduly
high stress on the affinity aspect.
not be necessary that all Thakur Scheduled Tribes have an affinity with Ka Thakur
or Ma Thakur. The amplication 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." It is
contended that the conclusion reached on the basis of the findings of the
Committee is not warranted.
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 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 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 presidential 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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.