JudgmentJudgment 11 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5716/2018

Ashok Pochama Sallamwar,

Aged 51 years, Occ. Service

R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq.

Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli

.....PETITIONER(S)

// VERSUS //

(1)The State of Maharashtra,

through Secretary, Tribal

Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai

(2)The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee,

Gadchiroli, through its Member

Secretary

(3)The Sub Divisional Officer,

Office of SDO, Aheri, District

Gadchiroli

(4)The Deputy Director Vocational

Education & Training Regional

Office, Nagpur

(5)The Principal,

Govt. Industrial Training

Institute Allapalli, Tq. Aheri,

District Gadchiroli

.....RESPONDENT(S)

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 22 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

Shri A.S. Golegaonkar and Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the

Petitioner(s)

Shri S.V. Narale, AGP for the Respondent/State

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- MARCH 30 , 2026

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- APRIL 06, 2026

JUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2) By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the

order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 2 –

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli

(hereinafter referred to as “the Caste Certificate Scrutiny”)

thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner of

belonging to ‘Mannewar’ Schedule Tribe.

(3) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ

Petition are as under:-

(4) The Petitioner has been working as Shilp Nideshak

(Sandhata) i.e. Craft Instructor with the Respondent No. 5

Institute since 10.06.1999. The tribe claim of the Petitioner was

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 33 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

forwarded to the Respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee

by the Respondent No. 5 - Institute for verification vide letter

dated 27.09.2013.

(5) The Vigilance Report was forwarded on 08.03.2018,

to which the Petitioner submitted his reply on 08.04.2018. The

Petitioner has also submitted his objection letter dated

11.04.2018, thereby disputing the educational competency of the

Research Officer and objected that he does not possess the

requisite qualification to ascertain the affinity of the Petitioner

with his alleged tribe. However, the Respondent No. 2 – Caste

Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 18.06.2018, invalidated

the tribe claim of the Petitioner. The said order dated 18.06.2018

is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioner has submitted various documents in support of his

tribe claim before the Respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny

Committee, out of which the oldest document is of 29.01.1945

which is in respect of Grandfather of the Petitioner namely

Sallam Bhimdu S/o Bhupdu. The said document shows the tribe

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 44 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

as ‘Mannewar’. Despite submission of the oldest document

available with the Petitioner which is a pre-constitutional

document, the Respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee

invalidated the claim of the Petitioner.

(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his

contentions, relied on following citation:-

(a)Writ Petition No. 7419/2024 (Javedkha vs.

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee

& others) judgment dated 13.08.2025 of this Court;

(b)Writ Petition No. 2594/2018 (Satyanarayan

Yellaya Gare vs. Chief Executive Officer, Nagar

Parishad, Desaiganj, Gadchiroli & others) judgment

dated 14.01.2026 of this Court;

(c)Writ Petition No. 8048/2018 (Satyanarayan S/o

Sadwali Boge vs. State of Maharashtra & another)

judgment dated 04.11.2025 of this Court;

(d)Writ Petition No. 6134/2018 (Sainath Laxman

Ganjiwar vs. State of Maharashtra & others) judgment

dated 08.12.2025 of this Court; &

(e)Writ Petition No. 1212/2019 (Nikhil Sanjay

Bodewar vs. State of Maharashtra) judgment dated

11.03.2025 of this Court.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 55 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

(8) Per contra, learned AGP for the Respondent No. 2 –

Caste Scrutiny Committee submits that the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has procured following contra-entries which are

adverse to the claim of the Petitioner:-

Sr.

No

Description of the

Documents

Relation

with the

Petitioner

Tribe Dates

1Dakhal Kharij extract of

Pochya Bhima

Father Manyapawar01.05.1933

2Dakhal Kharij extract of

Venkati Pochya Sallam

Brother Mannepawar18.07.1960

3Dakhal Kharij extract of

Tara Pocham Sallam

Sister Manne 28.07.1967

4Dakhal Kharij extract of

Shanta Pocham Sallam

Sister Manne 28.07.1967

(9) The learned AGP for the Respondent No. 2 – Caste

Scrutiny Committee further contended that the Petitioner could

not prove socio-cultural affinity with ‘Mannewar’ Schedule

Tribe, and therefore, the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny

Committee has rightly rejected the tribe claim of the Petitioner,

and hence, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

does not require any interference by this Court and the Writ

Petition, being devoid of merits, be dismissed.

(10) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at

length, gone through the record and proceedings of the Caste

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 66 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of the learned AGP and

considered the citations relied upon by the learned Counsel for

the Petitioner.

(11) For the sake of convenience, the family tree of the

Petitioner is reproduced as under:-

(12) The Petitioner has placed on record the Vigilance

Cell Report at Annexure-F from which it can be very well seen

that the document dated 29/01/1945 in respect of grandfather of

the Petitioner namely Sallam Bhimdu S/o Bhupdu Mannewar

was duly verified by the Vigilance Cell and there is no contra

remark against the said entry of 1945. The only remark at the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 77 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

end of the list of documents is that there is no similarity in the

handwriting in respect of entry of Sallam Bhimdu of Kotwal

Panji and other entries. Another document pertaining to

Venkati S/o Pochya Sallam dated 01/10/1953 also shows the

entry of ‘Mannewar’. There is one document dated 01/05/1933

wherein Pochya S/o Bhima shown as belonging to Manyawar.

The Petitioner placed on record the appointment order

pertaining to his grandfather wherein his caste is shown as

‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner duly submitted his

reply to the Show Cause Notice and to the Vigilance Cell Report

thereby objecting the procedure followed by the Police

Vigilance Cell. The statement of elderly persons from village

vicinity were not recorded. The statement of parents were also

not recorded. The document collected by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee confirms that the document dated 29/01/1945 is

correct and genuine. It is also submitted that the other

documents pertaining to the years 1960, 1973 and 1974, those

are showing the tribe as ‘Mannewar’.

(13) The Petitioner specifically pointed out that while

putting the remark against the document of 1945 at the end of

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 88 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

the list, there is difference in ink and there is no resemblance,

however, the photocopy of the said entry was not brought to the

notice of the candidate nor the original is placed on record or

shown to the candidate. Moreover, it is the specific contention

of the Petitioner that he has no access to the Revenue Records

maintained by the Station House. He has obtained the certified

copy of the said entry and the same was submitted before the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. In view of this fact, the Petitioner

placed on record the document prior to 1950 having great

probative value, which cannot be simply discarded without

there being any credible evidence on record.

(14) So far as the contention that there is no resemblance

in the handwriting or any ink, the same is duly explained by the

Petitioner. The forefathers of the Petitioner are residents of

Alapalli. They are working either as a farmer or an agriculturist

or labourers. A ‘Mannewar’ is a small tribe having its own

characteristics which belongs to South or Telugu speaking

portion of Chanda District where they mustered about 1600

persons in 1911. The name ‘Mannewar’ is the derived form of

Telugu word ‘Mannem’ meaning forest, while ‘war’ is a plural

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 99 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

termination in Telugu. ‘Mannewar’ thus signifies the people of

forest.

(15) Thus, in our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee cannot simply discard the document which is a

certified copy of the entry of 1945, merely by observing that

there is no resemblance in handwriting of two entries.

(16) Learned AGP for the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee submitted that there are adverse entries showing

castes as ‘Manewar’, ‘Mannepawar’, Manyepawar’ and

‘Manywar’ etc. There is a general observation by the Scrutiny

Committee that taking benefit of similarity in the caste name,

many non-tribal communities used to obtain bogus certificates.

It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is presupposing

that the applicants are taking undue advantage and grabbing

facility provided to the Scheduled Tribe by the Constitution.

The Committee, on its own, presumed on the basis of surmises

and made an absurd observation that the Local Government

peoples representatives have been influenced by pressurizing the

Officers and the Officers used to manipulate the record by

insertion, interpolation etc.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1010 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

(17) There is no substance in the above contention of the

learned AGP, as the Petitioner has placed on record the certified

copy of the document of 1945, which has a presumptive value.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not taken any expert’s

opinion to verify whether there is any difference in the

handwriting. Even if it is there, we cannot presume that these

entries are not taken at one stretch by the same person.

(18) The Petitioner herein filed a detailed reply to the

Vigilance Cell Report and specifically contended that the oldest

document in respect of his grandfather namely Sallam Bhimdu

S/o Bhupdu is of 29/01/1945 which was duly verified by the

Vigilance Cell.

(19) Insofar as the entries of ‘Manewar’, ‘Mannepawar’,

Manyepawar’ and ‘Manywar’ are concerned, there is no other

caste or tribe listed in any of the reserved category list other

than ‘Mannewar’ and since ‘Mannewar’ is found to be correct

and proper, it is conclusive proof. How the name ‘Mannewar’ is

derived has also been explained by the Petitioner. In our

considered opinion, the said entries of ‘Manewar’,

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1111 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

‘Mannepawar’, Manyepawar’ and ‘Manywar’ etc. are nothing but

corrupted language or pronunciation or writing of the word

‘Mannewar’.

(20) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on

Judgment in Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare (supra) wherein this

Court relying on judgment in Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewar vs.

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Social

Justice and Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai (Writ Petition

No.1212/2019), decided on 11.03.2025, held in para 19 as under:-

19. So far as contention of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee that there are some entries of

‘Mannepawar’, which are adverse, however, this issue

is already decided in the matter of Nikhil s/o Sanjay

Bodewar (supra), wherein the petitioner has

questioned the order by which claim of the petitioner

for issuance of validity of belonging to ‘Mannewar’

Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected. In the said

petition, the entry of Mannepawar which found to be

the basis for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as

that of belonging to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. The

reason for invalidating the caste claim in the present

matter is also Mannepawar entries. This Court

observed in the above referred judgment as under:-

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1212 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

“7. As regards the available evidence in the

form of documents if appreciated, two reasons

are recorded by the Committee viz.

‘Mannepawar’ entry recorded in the school

record of the grandfather - Lachanna and absence

of entry of the tribal land in the revenue record

of land owned by the mother of the petitioner –

Ushatai.

As regards adverse entry of

‘Mannepawar’ is concerned, when confronted

with the learned Assistant Government Pleader

as to existence of ‘Mannepawer’ caste, on

instructions, he has fairly conceded that there is

no caste as ‘Mannepawar’ in any of the statute

dealing with the caste.

8. As such, there are consistent entries of

‘Mannewar’ not only in relation to the

grandfather of the petitioner but also in relation

to the father of the petitioner. As such, the

reasons cited by the Committee for rejection of

the claim of the petitioner thereby recording a

finding that the caste entry in the record of the

grandfather of the petitioner is ‘Mannepawar’

would lead to negation of the claim cannot be

sustained.

10. We are equally required to be sensitive of

the fact that the parties like the petitioner

inherits his caste from his father. No doubt, even

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1313 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

if the document in relation to his mother is taken

into account, in absence of entry of Scheduled

Tribe in the revenue record the land can be

transferred to non-tribal, cannot be accepted as a

basis for negating the claim of the petitioner,

particularly when such document is in relation to

the mother of the petitioner. The negative

finding recorded by the Committee, in our

opinion, has no basis in law to infer that the

petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to

Scheduled Tribe category when relevant rules

contemplate that ‘blood relation’ has to be

construed as relation from father’s side.”

(21) The Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate

that there is entry of 1945 prior to the cut off date i.e. 1956

showing the tribe as ‘Mannewar’ in respect of grandfather of the

Petitioner. The reasons for discarding the said document is not at

all sustainable.

(22) In view of the judgment passed in Nikhil s/o Sanjay

Bodewwar (supra), the ground of adverse entries showing

Mannepawar is not open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to

discard the claim of the Petitioner. This Court in the matter of

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1414 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare (supra), relied on judgment of

Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 268,

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paras 14 and 15 held as

under:-

“14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to

on which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the

conclusion that the word “lu” was interpolated in the

register of the school more particularly when it was

not so opined by the Police Inspector who had

conducted the enquiry. Whether interpolation by

addition has taken place can be stated by a

handwriting expert or by comparison of admitted

letters of a person with this disputed one. It is an

admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had

never attempted to get an expert’s opinion nor itself

had compared the disputed letters with admitted one

of the appellant.

15. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded

by the Scrutiny Committee that the word “lu” was

interpolated will have to be regarded as not based on

any credible evidence. The Police Inspector had

never taken care to find out whether the word “lu”

was subsequently added by the school authorities or

by the appellant. It was necessary for the said officer

to undertake such an exercise in view of the specific

defence of the appellant that the school record was

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1515 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

lying with the school authorities and he had no

opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same”.

(23) Thus, the contention of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee that there is a difference in ink and handwriting is

nothing but an erroneous attempt to discard the document. The

certified copy of the document pertaining to the year 1945 is

having great presumptive value and its presumption will remain

till its rebuttal. However, there is nothing on record to rebut

such presumption. The learned AGP has not placed anything on

record to show that caste ‘Mannepawar’ is in existence.

Admittedly, the tribe ‘Mannewar’ has been included in the

category of Scheduled Tribe in the year 1956. As such, the entry

of 1945 in respect of grandfather of the Petitioner cannot be

disbelieved, as at the relevant time, the persons in whose favour

the document is produced, they were not aware that they are

going to be enlisted as Scheduled Tribe and will get the benefit

of their tribe.

(24) So far as affinity test is concerned, it is well settled

position of law that affinity test is not a litmus test. In Anand vs.

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.,

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1616 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, some broad parameters are laid down by

Hon’ble Apex Court which are reproduced as under:-

“(i) While dealing with 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. In

case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend

school, the availability of any documentary evidence

becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for

the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he

is the first generation ever to attend school, some

benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be

given. Needless to add 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;

(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses

on the ethnological connections with the scheduled

tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few

decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune

to the cultural development happening around them,

the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor.

However, with the migrations, modernisation and

contact with other communities, these communities

tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not

essentially match with the traditional characteristics

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1717 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

of the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded

as a litmus test for establishing the link of the

applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the

claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled

tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that

tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that

his present traits do not match his tribes' peculiar

anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,

customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies,

method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity

test may be used to corroborate the documentary

evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a

claim.”

(25) Thus, the documentary evidence prior to the cut off

date produced by the petitioner in support of his claim is having

great probative value and cannot be brushed aside lightly by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. There can be no reason for the

suppression or misrepresentation of facts to claim non-existence

benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe by that point of time.

(26) As such, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee is untenable. In fact, the Caste Scrutiny Committee,

any how, bent upon to invalidate the tribe claim of the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1818 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

Petitioner. Hence, the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 -

Caste Scrutiny Committee is not only erroneous but perverse

and untenable in law.

(27) Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-

O R D E R

(a)The Writ Petition is allowed.

(b)The order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Respondent

No. 2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Gadchiroli in Case No. dz-lvk/vtizrl/

XkM/III/1554/33/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(c)It is declared that the Petitioner has duly established

that he belongs to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe.

(d)The Respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee is

hereby directed to issue validity certificate of

‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this judgment.

(e)The Petitioner can rely on this judgment till the

validity certificate is issued to him.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1919 wp5716.18.odtwp5716.18.odt

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

.. ..

.. ..