JUDGMENT Vinay Joshi, J. (Oral) - Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashment and setting aside of impugned common order dated 11.04.2017, passed by the respondent - Scheduled Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. By the impugned order, the caste claim of petitioners - Saurabh (Writ Petition No. 5805/2017) and Advait (Writ Petition No.5788/2017), were came to be invalidated. 3. Petitioners claim to be belonging to "Thakur - Scheduled Tribe", which is an entry at Sr. No. 44 of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Petitioners are prosecuting their education and accordingly petitioner - Saurabh, has applied to the respondent Committee on 27.11.2006, through the Principal, Bhartiya Mahavidyalaya, Rajapeth, Amravati, whilst petitioner - Advait, equally applied to the respondent Committee on 15.06.2010, through the Principal, Shri R.L.T. College of Science, Akola, for verification of their caste claim. 4. Accordingly, petitioners caste certificates were forwarded for verification to respondent Committee. Petitioners submitted various documents, including pre-constitutional documents in respect of their respective claims. Petitioners have relied on preconstitutional documents as well as upon the certificates of validity of their blood relatives namely Dhananjay Wardekar and Ajay Wardekar, who are belongs to Thakur -Scheduled Tribe. 5. The caste claims were enquired into by the Police Vigilance Cell. The Committee issued show cause notices to petitioner and upon obtaining explanation expressed its dissatisfaction about the genuineness of caste claim and ultimately vide impugned order dated 11.04.2017, invalidated the caste claims. 6. Petitioners have tendered in all 67 documents in support of their caste claim which is evident from the impugned order itself. Some documents which are of pre-constitutional era, are as follows : Sr. No. Nature of Document Name Caste Recorded Date Relationship with petitioners 1. School leaving certificate. Pandit Kashirao Wardekar. Thakur 15.06.19 39. Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh 2. First page of service book. Pandir Kashirao Wardekar Thakur 30.06.19 32 DOB. Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh. 3. School leaving Certificate Jagannath Madhaorao Thakur 03.09.19 17 Paternal Cousin grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh 4. Birth Extract A male child shown to have born to Kashinath. Thakur 1943 Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh. 5. Birth Extract A male child (Suresh) shown to have born to Kashinath Madhav. Thakur 15.06.19 41 Cousin Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh. 6. Extract of Mutation Register Kashirao Madhorao Thakur. Birth Extract A male child shown to have born to Kashinath. Thakur 1943 Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh. 5. Birth Extract A male child (Suresh) shown to have born to Kashinath Madhav. Thakur 15.06.19 41 Cousin Grandfather of Petitioner Saurabh. 6. Extract of Mutation Register Kashirao Madhorao Thakur. - 28.08.19 40 Paternal great grandfather of petitioner Saurabh. 7. Besides that, two validity certificates as mentioned above are pressed into service. The resistance is mainly on the ground that petitioners failed in their affinity test. Secondly, though the entire record shows the entry of "Thakur", however, these entries are not sufficient to claim ''Thakur Scheduled Tribe''. Respondent would submit that Thakur caste is also in upper caste, therefore, only on the premise of old entries, petitioners cannot be held to be of Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order appears to be over burdened by various precedents of this Court as well as the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which looses the originality of the reasons for rejection of caste claims. The committee also held that the original place of living/residence of petitioners'' family was never included in the area scheduled for Thakur - Scheduled Tribe and this has also swayed in arriving into the impugned decision. 8. On the scrutiny of the record, it reveals that the Vigilance Cell jointly conducted the enquiry. The report discloses that there are entires in the name of ''Thakur''. However, during enquiry, the officer has not found the affinity to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On revisiting to the impugned order, it reveals that there is no finding that the preconstitutional documents were either obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation. These documents of pre-constitutional era, are of the petitioners ancestors is not in dispute. 9. The impugned order contends that the validity certificate to Dhanvijay was granted at the instance of some orders passed by this Court. The Committee tried to distinguish the ratio upon which the earlier validity was granted. In fact the said exercise was uncalled for since there is no case of obtaining validity by practising fraud or misrepresentation. The approach of the Committee of giving second class treatment to the validity certificates issued at the instance of Court, is un-approvable. Therefore, the earlier validities in the family cannot be brushed aside on any count which necessitates to weigh the same in petitioners favour. 10. The approach of the Committee of giving second class treatment to the validity certificates issued at the instance of Court, is un-approvable. Therefore, the earlier validities in the family cannot be brushed aside on any count which necessitates to weigh the same in petitioners favour. 10. This question has been dealt with by this Court in its decision in case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, (2010) 6 Mh.L.J. 401 ) , wherein in paragraph no.7 it has been held as under : "7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the Committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it." 11. The relevant portion in para 9 of the said decision is also reproduced below : "9. ... In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner." 12. The same has been reiterated by this Court in later decision in case of Gitesh Narendra Ghormare vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, (2018) 4 Mh.L.J. 933 ) . 13. The Committee has assigned the reason of area restriction, which is now removed. Therefore, the said reason does not stand to reason. So far as the issue of affinity test, the petitioners have allegedly failed to establish. In this regard, we may advert to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2011) 6 Mh.L.J. (SC) 919 , wherein in paragraph 22, it has been held that while dealing with the 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. It adds 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. 14. In respect of affinity test, the Apex Court has laid down that a cautious approach has to be adopted and with the migration, 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. It holds that the affinity test may not be recorded as litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with the Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as the sole criteria to reject a claim. 15. In substance, there are two validities of blood relatives in the family. The affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as the sole criteria to reject a claim. 15. In substance, there are two validities of blood relatives in the family. No plea is taken that they are obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. There exists several pre-constitutional documents having high probative value relating to family members, however, despite that, on perfunctory reasons the rejection is accorded which would deprive the benefits of tribal claim to petitioners who are shown to be of Thakur Scheduled Tribe from their forefathers that too right from the year 1917. 16. In view of that, the reasons accorded by the Scrutiny Committee for rejection would not sustain, hence, we allow the Writ Petition and pass the following order : (a) Writ Petition Nos.5805 and 5788 of 2017, stands allowed. (b) The common order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati on 11.04.2017, impugned in these petitions, is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) It is declared that petitioners - Saurabh Rajendra Wardekar and Advait Ravindra Wardekar, having established their claim for "Thakur - Scheduled Tribe" which is an entry at Sr.No.44 of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Respondent Scrutiny Committee is accordingly, directed to issue validity certificates in their names, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. (d) Petitioners would be entitled to all the benefits of Scheduled Tribe. 17. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost.