As per case facts, the petitioner challenged orders by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating their 'Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe claim. The petitioner submitted pre-constitutional documents supporting the claim, while the Vigilance Cell ... presented documents with 'Telangi' or 'Telgu' entries. The Committee rejected the claim, citing these adverse entries and the petitioner's failure to clear the affinity test, and also relied on entries for female relatives, which the petitioner argued should not be considered. The question arose whether the Scrutiny Committee rightly rejected the petitioners' tribe claim based on entries like 'Telangi' or 'Telgu' and the affinity test, especially when pre-constitutional documents supported the 'Mannewar' claim. Finally, the High Court, relying on previous judgments, held that 'Telgu' is a language and 'Telangi' refers to a region, not a caste, and such entries cannot be the sole basis for rejection. It affirmed that pre-constitutional documents showing 'Mannewar' have high probative value. The Court also reiterated that the affinity test cannot be the sole criterion for rejection, especially given societal changes. Therefore, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioners were declared to belong to 'Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe, with a directive to issue validity certificates.