JudgmentJudgment 11 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5666/2024

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 7146/2022

WRIT PETITION NO. 5666/2024

Ku. Sanika Uttam Choudhari

(Age 17), Occupation: Student

(Admitted to B.E. 4 years Course)

Father Guardian:- Uttam

Dhyaneshwar Chaudhari, At:

Mana Mohlla, Mangalwari Peth,

Umred, District Nagpur 441203

sanikachoudhari2@gmail.com M.

9309283290

.....PETITIONER(S)

// VERSUS //

(1)The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Chief Secretary,

Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai

400032, email:-

cs@maharashtra.gov.in

(2)State Common Entrance Test Cell,

Maharashtra State, Through its

Commissioner,

8

th

Floor, New Excelsior Building,

A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai –

400001

e-Mail

Maharashtra.cetcell@gmail.com

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 22 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

(3)MIT Academy of Engineering,

Alandi, Pune, (Deleted)

Bansilal Ramnath Agrawal

Charitable Trust’s Vishwakarma

Institute of Technology Bibewadi,

Pune, 411037, Through its

Principal, admission@vit.edu.

Amended as per Court’s order

dated 04/09/2025

(4)The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur,

Through its Member Secretary,

Giripeth, Nagpur 440010, email:

tcscnagpur@gmail.com

(5)Savitribai Phule Pune University,

Though its Registrar,

Ganeshkhind Road, Ganesh

Khind, Pune 411007

Amended as per Court’s order

dated 04/09/2025 .....RESPONDENT(S)

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 7146/2022

Ku. Khushi Purushottam

Chaudhari (Age-17), Occupation:-

Student (Admitted to B.Sc

Agriculture), Mother Guardian:

Smt. Sharda Purushottam

Chaudhari, At:- Mana Mohlla,

Mangalwari Peth, Umre, District

Nagpur 441203

khushipchaudhari@gmail.com M.

9356619973

.....PETITIONER(S)

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 33 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

// VERSUS //

(1)The Joint Commissioner-cum-

Vice Chairman, The Scheduled

Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Giri Peth, Nagpur

440010 tcscnagpur@gmail.com

(2)Chief Secretary,

State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,

Mumbai 400032

(3)The Principal, College of

Agriculture, Sonali, Tal. Newasa,

District Ahmednagar 414105

....RESPONDENT(S)

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

Shri N.D. Jambhule & Shri A. Ramteke, Advocates for the respective

Petitioner(s)

Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent/State

Shri V. Joshi, Advocate h/f Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for the

Respondent No. 2 & Shri D.U. Thakare, Advocate for the Respondent

No. 3 in W.P. No. 5666/2024

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

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

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- MARCH 24 , 2026

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- APRIL 10, 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 these Petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the

orders passed by the Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 44 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Caste

Scrutiny Committee”) whereby the tribe claims of the Petitioners of

belonging to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. The

Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are cousin sisters.

(3) Since Writ Petition No. 5666/2024 is treated as lead

Petition, the facts and contentions stated in the said Writ Petition

are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in both the

Petitions and they are being decided by this common judgment.

(4) The facts giving rise for filing of Writ Petition

No. 5666/2024 are as under:-

(5) On 10/06/2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred issued

tribe certificate of “Mana” Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner. The

Petitioner, being qualified the MHT-CET examination, secured

admission in the Chemical Engineering Course in the Respondent

No. 3 – College on 17/08/2024. The Respondent No. 2 – CET Cell

directed the Petitioner to submit validity certificate, failing which,

her admission would be automatically cancelled. Thereafter, on

11/06/2024, the Petitioner submitted Application for grant of validity

certificate before the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee. On

04/09/2024, the Vigilance Cell submitted the enquiry report to the

Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee. On 05/09/2024, the

Petitioner was served with a show cause notice. As the Petitioner

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 55 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

being minor at the relevant time, the father of the Petitioner

submitted reply to the Vigilance Cell enquiry report on 06/09/2024.

By the order dated 10/09/2024, the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner.

(6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee has already granted validity

certificates in favour of blood relatives of the Petitioner including her

father. In spite of submission of the said validity certificates to the

Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Respondent – Caste

Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the Petitioner. In

support of her claim, the Petitioner submitted following validities

before the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee:-

Sr.

No.

Name of the

document

Name of the

person

Relation

with the

Petitioner

Tribe Date

1.Validity

certificate

Uttam

Chaudhari

Father Mana 31/05/2007

2.Validity

certificate

Krushna

Chinduji

Chaudhari

Cousin

Uncle

Mana 06/12/2010

3.Validity

certificate

Mala Chinduji

Chaudhari

Cousin AuntMana 06/12/2010

4.Validity

certificate

Vaishali Dattu

Chaudhari

Cousin AuntMana 09/03/2010

5.Validity

certificate

Jyoti Dattu

Chaudhari

Cousin AuntMana 28/06/2007

(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that if

blood relatives of the person applying for verification before the

Caste Scrutiny Committee have been granted tribe validity

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 66 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

certificates, no further enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee is called

for. It is the duty of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to validate the

tribe certificate. It is further submitted that the validity certificate

issued to the father of the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Uttam Chaudhari has

been issued after conducting due vigilance enquiry by the

Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee.

(8) It is submitted that the Petitioner has also submitted the

vaccination record and birth extract register of Bhagu, a daughter

born to Sadhya, which is a pre-constitutional document dated

24/12/1930 & 22/03/1931 showing entry ‘Mana’. The said document

is the oldest one submitted by the Petitioner, which should have

been taken into consideration by the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny

Committee. Hence, he prays that the orders passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee be quashed and set aside and directions needs to

be issued to the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny Committee to grant

validity certificates to the Petitioners.

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

contentions, placed reliance on the following citations:-

(a)Writ Petition No. 5832/2022 (Gautam Parasram

Gadmade vs. The Commandant, State Reserve Police

Force, Gat No. 9, Amravati & others);

(b)Writ Petition No. 6883/2023 (Lisha D/o Banduji

Gajbe vs. The Vice Chairman/Member-Secretary,

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 77 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Nagpur);

(c)Writ Petition No. 8392/2022 (Sakshi D/o Shrikant

Katkar vs. The Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & others);

(d)Writ Petition No. 5388/2024 (Ku. Payal Mahendra

Gajbe vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur & others);

(e)Writ Petition No. 1192/2022 (Ku. Samiksha Vilas

Dharne vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur);

(f)Apporva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisonal Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & others reported

in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401;

(g) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan

Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785;

(h)Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023

SCC Online SC 909.

(10) Per contra, learned AGP for the Respondent – Caste

Scrutiny Committee submitted that the genealogy submitted by the

Petitioner for validation is very corroborating. The Petitioner has not

submitted any strong evidence to the Caste Scrutiny Committee

while submitting the proposal or during the hearing of the matter. It

is submitted that in case of the blood relatives of the Petitioner, no

detailed enquiry was conducted. Insofar as case of father of the

Petitioner is concerned, the Investigating Officer of the Police

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 88 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

Vigilance Cell conducted the investigation in a purely casual manner

and based on a cursory investigation report, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee issued the validity certificate to the father of the

Petitioner. It is submitted that there were consistent entries of Mani

in the documents submitted by the relatives of the Petitioner,

therefore, the Committee started the review procedure against the

said validity holders and Show Cause Notices were issued to the said

blood relatives of the Petitioner.

(11) Learned AGP also submitted that the traditional

residence of the Petitioner’s family is in Nagpur and Nagpur is not a

residential area of Scheduled Tribes. So also, the Petitioner has not

migrated from the traditional habitat of “Mana” Tribe to Nagpur and

the Family Affinity (Socio-Cultural Affinity) of the Petitioner is not

related to “Mana” tribe. Hence, the order passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee does not suffers from any error of law, and

therefore, the Writ Petitions, being devoid of merits, are liable to be

dismissed.

(12) Learned AGP for the Respondent – Caste Scrutiny

Committee, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the

order passed by this Court in PIL No. 102/2013 (Narayan Dinbaji

Jambule & others vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Gadchiroli & others).

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 99 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

(13) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, gone

through the record and proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee

with the assistance of learned AGP and considered the citations

relied upon by the Petitioners.

(14) For the sake of convenience, the genealogy tree of the

Petitioners is reproduced as under:-

(15) On perusal of the record, it appears that the oldest

document produced by the Petitioners is 24/12/1930 which is a

certified copy of the vaccination register of an infant born namely

Bhagu. In the said certified copy, it is mentioned that Sadhya Bangya

Mana is having child Bhagu (mentioned as ‘Ladka’), the date of birth

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1010 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

is shown as 24/12/1930 and the date of vaccination is shown as

22/03/1931. This old document is doubted by the Vigilance Cell as

well as the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is

mention of ‘ladka’ (son) whereas the document procured by the

Vigilance Cell, which is at Page No. 91 of the Petition, at Serial No.

218, father’s name is shown as Sadhya Bangya, name of son or

daughter is shown as Mana ladki (daughter) Bhagu. On comparison

of the document procured by the Vigilance Cell as well as the

document produced by the Petitioner, it appears that the date of

birth, date of vaccination and all other details are matching except

the word ‘ladki’. The only mistake appears to be the mention of the

word ‘ladka’ instead of ‘ladki’. It can be inferred that it is a clerical

mistake made by the Authorities. However, it does not make any

difference for holding Sada Bangya as Mana and having daughter

namely Bhagu whose date of birth is 24/12/1930. Only for this above

referred reason, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot discard the

said document.

(16) The Caste Scrutiny Committee has further observed that

there is no person by name Bhagu in the family tree of the

Petitioners. On perusal of the family tree procured by the Vigilance

Cell, during enquiry which is in detail, it shows Sadu alias Sadya

having daughter namely Gaura alias Bhagu, the name of father of

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1111 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

Sadu is mentioned as Bhangya. Thus, the finding recorded by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee in respect of this document is not only

erroneous, but also perverse to the evidence on record. The

contention of the Petitioners that while giving go-bye to the said

document of 1930, the Caste Scrutiny Committee made reference to

the document dated 30/07/1912 in respect of Bhagu Kawadu. In the

remark column, it is also mentioned that the said document is

suppressed by the Petitioner. Even today, that document is not

available in the record. The documents which were procured by the

Vigilance Cell are enlisted on Page No. 108. There is no reference of

any document of 1912. However, there is entry in the extract given

by the Headmaster of Mangalwari Corporation School, Umred

pertaining to the admission of the said Bhagu Kawadu on 14/11/1927.

(17) If the family tree of the Petitioners is perused, there is no

person by name Bhagu – son of Kawadu. Similarly, the document

dated 04/03/1922 pertaining to Namdeo Doma which is the extract

admission register of the school, there is no person by name Namdeo

Doma in the family of the Petitioners. Insofar as the document

pertaining to one Sakharam S/o. Warlu Mana is concerned, it is the

certified copy of the birth extract issued by Nagar Parishad, Umred

dated 20/03/1949, in which the tribe is mentioned as ‘Mana’. The

name Sakharam is appearing in the family tree of the Petitioners and

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1212 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

in the said document, there is specific mention of ‘Mana’. This

document is discarded on the ground that there is remark of

Vigilance Cell Enquiry Officer that the said record is in a tattered

condition, and therefore, its genuineness cannot be verified; that the

concerned Officer was on leave and as soon as he will resume, the

document would be included in the file. Moreover, it is observed that

the said certified copy is obtained in the year 2005 by one Shyam

Sundar Wagh, and therefore, this document is pertaining to that

Wagh family.

(18) Before coming to such conclusion, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has not taken any pain to show how this document is

pertaining to Wagh family specifically when the names are appearing

in the family tree of the Petitioners. Only if a certified copy is

obtained by some other person, the Caste Scrutiny Committee

cannot conclude that the said document must be pertaining to the

Applicant therein. In fact, it appears that the forefathers of the

Petitioners were not much educated and it may happen that

somebody helped them to obtain the certified copy of the said

document. There is no restriction or any law prescribing that only

the member of the family can apply for the documents. Once the

certified copy is placed on record and when there is no finding that

the said document is fabricated or fraudulently obtained, it has

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1313 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

presumptive value and unless the said presumption is rebutted, the

evidenciary value of the said document will remain intact. Only by

saying that the document must be of the Applicant – Wagh would

not suffice, unless it is shown that there is a person by name

Sakharam Warlu in the family of Wagh.

(19) The Petitioners drew our attention to the validity

certificates issued in favour of his father – Uttam Chaudhari, cousin

uncle Krishna Chaudhari and cousin aunt – Mala Chinduji

Chaudhari which were also produced before the Caste Scrutiny

Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee discarded those validity

certificates. The validity certificates in respect of Krishna and Mala

were not considered on the ground that there is no affidavit filed by

the Petitioners of the validity holders. However, it can be seen that

the names of Krishna and Mala are appearing in the family tree of

the Petitioners. Insofar as the validity pertaining to the father of the

Petitioner namely Uttam Chaudhari is concerned, it was not

considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that

there was no vigilance enquiry conducted as per law. From the

order, it appears that vigilance was conducted while granting validity

to the father of the Petitioner. Two more validity certificates were

produced by the Petitioner in respect of Vaishali Dattu Chaudhari

and Jyoti Dattu Chaudhari who are cousin aunt of the Petitioners.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1414 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

The same were also discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is

a settled principle of law that as per Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)

Certificate Rules, 2003, it is not necessary to direct vigilance if the

Caste Scrutiny Committee is satisfied with the documents placed on

record. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has no power to review the

order passed by the Competent Caste Scrutiny Committee in the

earlier point of time.

(20) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the

judgment in Gautam Parasram Gadmade (supra) wherein this Court

in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, held as under:-

“10. Moreover, it is evident that there are some entries

in the Pre-Constitutional documents showing the

paternal forefathers of the petitioner to be belonging to

'Mana', 'Mane', 'Kunbi Mane', 'Mane Kunbi', and so on,

but it is also proved that the son of the petitioner has

been granted Validity Certificate as he belonging to

'Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, as per the directions issued by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision rendered in CA

No.5270/2004, It appears that the Scrutiny Committee

has not given any importance to the evidentiary value to

the documents produced by the petitioner before it i.e

the Validity Certificate granted to the son of the

petitioner on the basis of the directions issued by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and has given undue importance to

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1515 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

some stray entries in the documents of the forefathers of

the petitioner, as being inconsistent with each other.

11. In fact, the law is well settled on the question of

the evidentiary value of a Validity Certificate granted to a

person by the competent Scrutiny Committee. The

Validity Certificate granted to a person by the competent

Scrutiny Committee stands as conclusive proof of the

social status of that person unless it is revoked for legally

admissible reasons. Therefore, what stands as conclusive

proof of the social status of a person also stands as

sufficient and reasonable proof of the social status of a

person, who is related from the paternal side to a person

in whose favour the Validity Certificate has been

granted. Obviously, in such a case, the Scrutiny

Committee must ascertain whether the certificate is

genuine and same was issued in favour of the blood

relatives of the said person if it is found that after holding

due inquiry and following due procedure same was issued

then the Scrutiny Committee has to rely on the said

Validity Certificate and ought to have issued a certificate

in favour of the petitioner. But in the case at hand, the

Scrutiny Committee has completely ignored the settled

position of law and rejected the application of the

petitioner by giving unnecessary and undue importance

to the other documents. Thus, it appears that the

Scrutiny Committee has superseded its jurisdiction in

making certain comments upon the unreliability of the

Validity Certificate granted to the son of the petitioner-

Gouresh.”

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1616 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

(21) The five validities were placed on record whose names

are appearing in the family tree. As stated above, there is no Rule

prescribing the vigilance mandatory. However, in case of father, due

vigilance enquiry was conducted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

also placed reliance on the judgment in Lisha D/o Banduji Gajbe

(supra) wherein relying on the judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi

Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), this Court held that the

Committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste

claim of the petitioner ought not to have arrived at a different

conclusion. 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 relatives who applies.

(22) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance

on the judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan

Samiti (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held in

Paragraph Nos. 19 and 22, as under:-

“19. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if

the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the

documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall

forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for

conducting the school, home and other enquiry.

Therefore, in every case, as a matter of routine, the

Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the

application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1717 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

When sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if

the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the

documents produced by the applicant that the case

should be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the

Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order

recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the

documents produced by the applicant. Before referring

the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the

material produced by the applicant is required and

therefore, the application of mind must be reflected in

the order sheets of the Scrutiny Committee.

“22. We can also contemplate one more scenario

which is found in many cases. These are the cases where

the applicant relies upon caste validity certificates issued

to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a validity

certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny

Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued

in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case or constituted under the

Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly,

the Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the

certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee

will have to decide whether the applicant has established

that the person to whom the validity certificate relied

upon by him has been issued is his blood relative. For

that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and

exact relationship with the person to whom the validity

certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will

have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the

validity certificate has been granted to the blood relative

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1818 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

of the applicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee

after holding due enquiry and following due procedure.

Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee has issued a

validity certificate contemplated in terms of the decision

in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1, the examination

will be whether the enquiry contemplated by the said

decision has been held. If the certificate relied upon is

issued after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the

Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain whether the

concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed the

procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or

the SC Rules, as the case may be. For this verification, the

Scrutiny Committee can exercise powers conferred on it

by Section 9(d) by requisitioning the record of the

concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has issued

the validity certificate to the blood relative of the

applicant. If the record has been destroyed, the Scrutiny

Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has been

held on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee by which caste validity has been granted to

the blood relative of the applicant. If it is established that

the validity certificate has been granted without holding

a proper inquiry or without recording reasons, obviously

the caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the caste

certificate only on the basis of such validity certificate of

the blood relative.”

(23) The certificates issued in favour of the relatives of the

Petitioners, specifically the father, is not cancelled yet nor there is

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1919 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

any allegation that those certificates were obtained by fraud or

misrepresentation. Therefore, they are still holding the field.

(24) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance

on the judgment in Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra), wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 10 held as under:-

“10. A perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committee

itself would reveal that the appellant’s great grandfathers

birth record show the caste as ‘Mana’. The said document

relates to as early as 10th March 1924, while another

document of 14th April 1926 shows as ‘Mani’. However,

it is pertinent to note, and learned counsel for the parties

also agree, that there is no caste named ‘Mani’. It is thus

possible that there could be some mistake in writing

when the caste was written. It is to be noted that original

record is written in Marathi and not in English. As such,

such an error is quite possible.”

(25) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on

the judgment in Apporva D/o Vinay Nichale (supra) wherein, this

Court held that “where the caste claim of an applicant has been

scrutinized and accepted and one committee has given a finding

about the validity of the caste, another committee ought not to

refuse the same status to his/her blood relatives who applies. It is

held that the Government of Maharashtra by its resolution dated

22/08/2007 directed that where during the course of enquiry or

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2020 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

scrutiny of a caste claim it is seen that the caste claim of a blood

relatives who applies. In the said judgment, it is held as under:

“The Government of Maharashtra by its resolution dated

22/8/2007 directed that where during the course of

enquiry or scrutiny of a caste claim it is seen that the

caste claim of a blood relative such as father, son,

daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and

accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be

allowed without insisting on any other proof. The

guidelines provided by the said relationship by blood is

established or not doubted, and one such relative has

been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is

no reason why public time or money should be spent in

the committee testing the same evidence and making the

same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on

the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such

relation has been obtained by fraud.

…. 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 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

proceeding for cancellation of the earlier order”

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2121 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

(26) Moreover, the Circular dated 24/04/1985 has inferred

that the term ‘Mana’ is also known by other names like ‘Mani’,

‘Mane’ etc. The same is also reflected in the Anthropological Survey

of India, “People of India – Maharashtra” Volume 2 wherein it is

stated that the term ‘Mana’ is also called as ‘Mana’, ‘Mani’, ‘Mane’

etc.

(27) Learned AGP placed reliance on the judgment in PIL

No. 102/2013 (Naryana Dinbaji Jambhule & others vs. The Scheduled

Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli & others) in

support of his contention that if on erroneous presumption or

erroneously construing the documents and without undergoing the

process of scrutiny, vigilance etc. validity is granted to a member in

the family, then such a Validity Certificate will not ipso facto entitle

other members of the family to claim Validity Certificate on the basis

thereof. In such a case, the Committee will be fully justified in

holding de novo enquiry if it is found that the claim of such

candidate is not supported by documentary evidence and there are

contra documents available in denying the claim of such a candidate.

In the very judgment, it is made clear that in spite of there being

voluminous documents prior to the presidential order being

promulgated showing the caste/tribe to be 'Mana', denying Validity

Certificate to such candidates on the ground that the documents does

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2222 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

not mention the caste/tribe as 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, is nothing but

an attempt to deny the benefit of validity to the deserving

candidates. By no stretch of imagination, the forefathers of the

candidates in the years 1920 or 1921 would have imagined that after

30 years the presidential order would be promulgated and they

would be described as Scheduled tribe and therefore, they should

write Scheduled Tribe after their particular Tribe/Caste.

(28) As such, the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, on the face of record, are erroneous and preserve and

hence, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

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

O R D E R

(a)The Writ Petitions are allowed.

(b)The orders dated 04/11/2022 and 10/09/2024 passed by

the Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur in Case Nos. dz- lvk/vtizrl/ukx/I/

275/31/2024 and JC/TCSC/NGP/I/393/32/2021 are hereby

quashed and set aside.

(c)It is declared that the Petitioners have duly established

that they belong to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2323 wp5666.24+1.odtwp5666.24+1.odt

(d)The Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby directed to issue

validity certificates to the Petitioners of belonging to

‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

(e)The Petitioners can rely on this judgment until the

validity certificates are issued to them.

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.)

.. ..

.. ..