WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

1/20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NOS. 5892, 1039 & 8007 OF 2018

---------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2018

PETITIONER : Nikhil S/o Dharmraj Ghodmare, Aged

about 25 yrs., Occu.: Service, R/o

Sillewara, Chandni Chowk, Qtr. No.270,

Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

-Versus-

RESPONDENT :1.The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,

Giripeth, Nagpur.

2.The General Manager, Maharashtra State

Power Generation Co.Ltd., Estralla Batteries

Expansion Building, Dharavi Road,

Matunga (East), Mumbai-400019.

3.The Chief General Manager (GEN),

Maharashtra State Power Generation

Co.Ltd., Thermal Power Station,

Khaparkheda, Distt. Nagpur-441102.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Preeti Rane, Adv. for the petitioner.

Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent No.1.

Mr.C.A.Mohgaonkar, Adv.for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------

KHUNTE 2026:BHC-NAG:5351-DB

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

2/20

WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 OF 2018

PETITIONER : Shrikant S/o Krushnaji Ghodmare, Age 31

years, Occu.: Service, R/o Plot No.53,

Shriram Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur.

-Versus-

RESPONDENT :1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur, through its Chairman,

Committee for Scheduled Tribe Claims,

Office at Adivasi Vikas Bhawan, 2

nd

Floor,

Giripeth, Nagpur, Tq. and Distt. Nagpur.

2.State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,

Tribal Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3.The Manager, Bank of India, Nagpur Zonal

Office, Nagpur Zone-I, Human Resources

Department, Bank of India Building, 3

rd

Floor, S.V.Patel Marg, Nagpur-440 001.

4.Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramtek, Tahsil

Ramtek, District Nagpur.

5.The Collector, Nagpur, Office at

Collectorate Premises, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. P. P. Dhok, Adv. for the petitioner.

Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5.

Mr.T.Y.Sharif, Adv. h/f Mr.A.T.Purohit, Adv.for the respondent No.3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 8007 OF 2018

PETITIONER : Lalita D/o Krushnarao Ghodmare, Aged

about 35 yrs., Occu.: Service, R/o Plot

No.53, Shriram Nagar, Udaynagar Ring

Road, Nagpur.

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

3/20

-Versus-

RESPONDENT :1.The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,

Giripeth, Nagpur.

2.The Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, Through its

Chief Executive Officer.

3.The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Nagpur.

4.The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre,

Gumthala, Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Preeti Rane, Adv. for the petitioner.

Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Sheikh Majid, Adv.for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

CLOSED ON : 9

TH

MARCH, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 6

TH

APRIL, 2026

J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Since common issue regarding invalidation of caste

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

4/20

certificates of the petitioners is involved in all the petitions and the

petitioners are related to each other, the same are decided by this

common judgment.

4. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the

impugned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby

invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners belonging to ‘Mana’

Scheduled Tribe and seeking issuance of validity certificates in their

favour.

5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1039 of 2018 challenges

the provisions of section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste &

Tribe, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Categories (Regulation of

Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rule 9 of

the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of Certificates Rules, 2003.

6. In all these petitions, the petitioners are in service under

different departments. All the petitioners belong to Mana Scheduled

Tribe. Their caste certificates were forwarded to the Scrutiny

Committee for verification. After the proposals were received, the

Scrutiny Committee directed the vigilance enquiry and after

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

5/20

considering the vigilance report and the replies were filed by the

respective petitioners, the Scrutiny Committee by the impugned

orders invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners on the ground of

lack of documentary evidence, affinity test and area restriction.

7. Since the issue involved in these petitions is same, brief

facts are taken from Writ Petition No.5892 of 2018 as a lead petition.

It is contended by the petitioner that he was selected on merits as

Technician-III on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category and

was appointed on the establishment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide

appointment order dated 18/02/2016. The petitioner submitted

proposal along with necessary documents amongst which pre-

independence documents are enlisted as under:

Sr.

No.

Type of

Document

Name on the

document

Relation

with the

petitioner

Tribe Date

1.Extract of

Bandobast

Misal

Dolya s/o Raoji

Mana

Great

grandfather

Mana 1912-13

2.Extract of

Kotwal Panji

(Birth)

Shrawan s/o

Tanba Mana

Great

grandfather

Mana 25/11/1947

3. Extract of

birth

register

Urkuda s/o

Rujya Mana

Cousin

great

grandfather

Mana 28/01/1943

4.Extract of

birth

register

Mahadeo S/o

Dolba

Cousin

grandfather

Mana 29/06/1948

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

6/20

8. The Vigilance Cell procured the documents of 1947, 1948

and 1943 in which Mana entry is shown. The Vigilance Cell relied on

the following adverse documents:

Sr.

No.

Type of

Document

Name on the

document

Relation

with the

petitioner

Tribe Date

1.Extract of

Dakhal

Kharij

Maroti

Mahadeo Dolba

Relation not

mentioned

Mani 1953

2.Document

P-1

Dolya s/o Raoji Great great

grandfather

Mani –

Kunbi

–

3. Document

P-1

Dolya s/o Raoji Relation not

mentioned

Mani –

Kunbi

1913-14

9. The petitioner contended that the documents of pre-

independence era depicting the entry as “Mana” have greatest

probative value in the eyes of law and by considering the said

documents, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have granted validity

certificate to the petitioner. The other ground for invalidating the

caste claim is affinity test. The petitioner contended that the affinity

test is not a litmus test and the petitioner has duly established his

relationship with the persons mentioned in the documents of pre-

independence era. Insofar as adverse finding on area restriction of

respective petitioner is concerned, it is apparent that after 1976

exercise of removal of area restriction, said aspect looses its relevance.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that The committee

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

7/20

has not come across any material which shows that caste “Mana” has

been shown either by interpolation or tampering the document. The

petitioner further contended that validity certificates were issued to

his blood relatives namely Chandrakant and Kishor Ghodmare by the

same Scrutiny Committee on 31/03/2009, annexed to the petition at

Annexures 8 & 9. In spite of this position, the Scrutiny Committee

relied upon the documents, which have no probative value, since the

said documents are of post independence era. The Scrutiny Committee

invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners erroneously. Therefore,

the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. In regard to the challenge to the provisions of section 6 of

the Act of 2000 and Rule 9 of Rules, 2003 in Writ Petition No.1039 of

2018 are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the State Government has not followed and ignored the

guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case

reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 as to how Scrutiny Committee should be

constituted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003 is not inconsistent with the

guidelines and in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhuri

Patil’s case (supra). The State Government is not entitled to take

contrary view which would challenge the judgment of Hon’ble Apex

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

8/20

Court. Therefore, the said provisions are unfair, ineffective and

violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner and cannot be

allowed to remain in the Statute and it would be violation of

provisions of Constitution of India. In view of this position, the

respondent-Scrutiny Committee cannot exercise the powers without

procedure and without legal sanction.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on

following citations in support of their claim:

(i)Gitesh s/o Narendra Ghormare v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 933.

(ii)Judgment in Writ Petition No.5171 of 2018 (Mrunali d/o

Shamrao Wakade v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Gadchrioli and others) and other connected matters, dated

30/08/2018.

(iii)Judgment in Writ Petition No.5481 of 2018 (Manisha D/o

Pundlik Dadmal v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Gadchrioli and others), dated 30/08/2018.

(iv)Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, AIR 1995

SC 94.

(v)Rohit Ranjeetsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (2)

Mh.L.J. 384.

12. Per contra, the learned AGP has taken us through the

impugned order and contended that the entry of Mana Kunbi exists in

the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell and hence mention of

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

9/20

caste as Mana in old documents is not determinative. The learned

AGP submits that in spite of caste Mana being mentioned, the affinity

test is necessary and therefore, affinity test will conclusively establish

that the petitioner does not belong to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. She

submits that the impugned orders are just, proper and reasonable and

therefore no interference is required. In support of her case, the

learned AGP relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No.2871 of 2024

(Sakshi D/o Govindrao Narnaware v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur), dated 09/09/2024.

13. Heard submissions of both the parties at length and

examined the documents and authorities relied upon by their

respective counsel.

14. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as

under:

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

10/20

15. Admittedly, the document pertaining to Shravan s/o Tanba

Mana of 1947 as well as documents pertaining to Urkuda s/o Rujya

Mana of 1943 and Mahadeo s/o Dolba Mana of 1948 were duly

verified by the Vigilance Cell. On perusal of the report of Vigilance

Cell as mentioned above, all the documents of 1947, 1948 and 1943

showing “Mana” entry were duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. There

is remark by the Vigilance Cell that there is overwriting in the entry

“Mana”. However, in the entry in respect of documents pertaining to

Ramkrushna Mahadeo Dolba and Kaushi Urkuda Rujya, we have

minutely perused the documents from the record, it appears that in

both the documents there is entry of ‘Mana’ and there appears no

overwriting. So far as other documents showing entry of ‘Mani’ are

post 1950. Similarly, the petitioner has placed on record P-1 of 1912-

17, wherein Tanya S/o Raoji Mani entry is there. However, it appears

that above that entry, there is mention of ‘Kunbi’ with initials. At any

rate, this entry of ‘Kunbi’ is not made at the instance of the petitioner

because by inserting ‘Kunbi’, the petitioners or their forefathers were

not going to get any benefit. Why this entry of ‘Kunbi’ is there and

who has made the same, is not explained by the Committee.

Admittedly, it is in a different ink and there appears to be initials

against that entry of ‘Kunbi’. This fact is duly noted by the Scrutiny

Committee, but not explained. The Bandobast Misal i.e. P-1 of

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

11/20

1912-17 in respect of Dolya s/o Raoji shown as ‘Mana’. The entries in

the documents of 1947, 1948 and 1943 showing caste as “Mana”. So

far as P-1 Extract in respect of Tanya s/o Raoji of 1912-17, the

Committee has observed that above the word ‘Mani’, there is word

written as ‘Kunbi’ by different ink. Similarly, P-1 Extract in respect of

Dolya s/o Raoji of 1913-14, ‘Kunbi’ word is written above the word

‘Mana’. For the sake of convenience, the portion where ‘Kunbi’ word

inserted in Extracts of P-1 of 1912-17 are reproduced as under:

16. We have minutely perused the documents of 1943 in

respect of Urkuda Rujya blessed with daughter Kaushi. However, we

have not seen any overwriting or scoring or interpolation in the said

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

12/20

document. The Scrutiny Committee accepted the document of 1947.

The observation made by the Scrutiny Committee that in Revenue

Record there is overwriting or scoring in the entry of caste is totally

erroneous. If the word ‘Mani’, ‘Mana’ was written by scoring ‘Kunbi’

entry, one can understand the same. However, here above the word

‘Mana’ somebody has written ‘Kunbi’. The petitioners or their

forefathers by doing such insertion of entry ‘Kunbi’ are not getting any

benefit, nor they have any access to the said record to make such

insertion. At any rate, there is no overwriting, nor any scoring nor any

interpolation at the instance of the petitioner. Though the Scrutiny

Committee has observed that the petitioner produced Extract of P-1

for the year 1912-17 in respect of Dolya s/o Raoji showing entry

‘Mana’, whereas the Vigilance Cell collected the P-1 Extract pertaining

to Dolya s/o Raoji of 1912-17 showing ‘Kunbi Mana’. We have

perused both the documents. In both the documents the caste is

shown as ‘Mana’. There is no mention of ‘Mani’. Moreover, in both

the documents above the word ‘Mana’, there is word written as

‘Kunbi’ with different ink. The Scrutiny Committee without referring

the documents as it is, tried to portray that the petitioner has

manipulated the documents. Thus, in our considered opinion, the

Scrutiny Committee has recorded perverse findings just to invalidate

the caste claim of the petitioners any how.

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

13/20

17. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the

validity certificates issued in favour of Chandrakant Maruti Ghodmare

and Kishor Maruti Ghodmare, cousin and uncle of the petitioner

respectively on the ground that the said certificates were issued

without conducting vigilance enquiry and in view of the order passed

by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The validity certificates granted to the

blood relatives are not cancelled till date and the same are holding

the field to grant validity certificate to the petitioners. The learned

counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has

issued circular on 06/10/2006, wherein it is mentioned that the

words ‘pending Supreme Court Case’ should be removed from the

certificates. In view thereof, the Scrutiny Committee ought not to

have discarded the certificates issued in favour of blood relatives from

the paternal side of the petitioners. In this regard this Court in

Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, specifically in

para-9 held as under:

“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

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

14/20

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. 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.”

18. So far as validity of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act,

2000 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of) Certificates Rules, 2003 are concerned,

this Court already upheld the validity of above provisions and

therefore, no need to make any observation in this regard.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on

Gitesh s/o Narendra Ghormare v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur and others (supra), wherein this Court held as

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

15/20

under:

“If there are number of documents containing

different kinds of entries of caste/tribe like ‘Mana’,

‘Mane’, ‘Mani’, ‘Mana Kunbi’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Khand

Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’ and so on, the duty of the Court

will be to ascertain the dominant entries having greater

probative value and record a specific finding of

conclusive nature as to whether entries can be construed

as 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry in the

cluster of tribes at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order. Merely because certain

documents indicate entry of caste/tribe other than

'Mana' is not enough to reject the claim. What is

prohibited is that the entry 'Mana' in Scheduled Tribes

Order does not include or exclude the entries like 'Mana

Kunbi', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Maratha Mana',

'Kunbi Mana' and so on, which are probably known to

exist as separate caste/tribe or sub-caste/tribe, The

interpretation, clarification, explanation of the entries in

the Scheduled Tribes Order is not permitted. The

interpretation of entries in the documents cannot be

confused with the interpretation entry in the Scheduled

Tribes Order. It is not the finding of the Committee that

the father of the petitioner obtained the caste validity

certificate by playing a fraud or that the grant of

certificate was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the

certificates indicate that the same are issued in view of

the decision of the Apex Court. A merely different view

on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative

would not entitle the Committee to reject the claim.

Therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the

certificate in favour of the petitioner. The order passed

by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the

petitioner for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' cannot be

sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set

aside by granting a declaration that the petitioner has

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

16/20

established his claim on the basis of the documents

produced on record for ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’. 2011(6)

Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919, Rel. (Paras 23, 31 and 32).”

Learned counsel Ms.Rane in support of her contention that

there is no question of any area restriction, so also in support of her

contention that the Committee has not pointed out any material or

evidence, which holds that a caste by name ‘Mana’ exists independent

of Mana Scheduled Tribe, the learned counsel for the petitioners

placed reliance on Mrunali d/o Shamrao Wakade v. The Vice-

Chairman/ Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Gadchrioli and others (supra), wherein in paras

12 and 13 held as under:

“12. Insofar as adverse finding on residence/native

place of family of respective petitioners is concerned, it is

apparent that after 1976 exercise of removal of area

restriction, said aspect looses its relevance. The fact that

petitioner or his family hails from such area at the most

can be corroborative piece of evidence in favour of the

petitioner. It cannot be used against him. This aspect had

already been looked into in judgment delivered by this

Bench in the case of Chhaya d/o Jasvantsingh Hajari and

others v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe

Claims, Amravati and others (reported in 2018 LawSuit

(Bom) 1403).

13. In present matters, the Committee has not come

across any material which shows that caste "Mana" has

been shown either by interpolation or tampering. The

Committee has only, because of absence of vigilance

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

17/20

exercise, ignored validities and taken recourse to affinity.

There is a general observation which records that in

Vidarbha area, "Mana" caste also exists and they are

mostly cultivators. Their caste is recorded as "Mana",

"Mane", "Mani", "Mane Kunbi", "Mani Kunbi" or "Kunbi".

The Committee observes that this "Mana" (so called

upper caste Mana) take advantage of similarity of name

and pose themselves as candidates belonging to "Mana"

Scheduled Tribe. However, this observation of

Committee is not supported by any evidence. The

Committee has not pointed out any case law or any other

material which holds that a caste by name "Mana" exists

independent of "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. In absence of

this material, a general observation as mentioned supra,

cannot have the effect of ignoring validities earlier

granted.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of her

contention that ‘Koonbee’ has come to the synonyms with agriculturist

and it is common thing to hear farmer of Brahmin or other caste

describe themselves as a ‘Koonbee Mana’, placed reliance on Manisha

D/o Pundlik Dadmal v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchrioli and

others (supra), wherein this Court held in paras 9 and 10 as under:

“9. The relevant portion appearing in sub-paragraph

(B) in impugned order of Scrutiny Committee contains a

chart and it reproduces certain facts or figures with

reference to Government Gazette. The oldest gazette

mentioned there is of year 1869-1870. Paragraph or part

136 is reproduced in last column. This portion reads as

under :-

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

18/20

136. Koonbees from the Largest, the most

important, and the sturdiest portion of the Hindoo

land cultivator community so much so that Koonbee

has come to the synonymous with agriculturist and

it is no uncommon thing to hear farmer of Brahmin

or other caste describe himself as a "Koonbee

Manna".

Perusal of this portion, therefore, shows that Koonbee

had become synonymous then with agriculturist and

even farmers of Brahmin or other castes describe

themselves as 'Koonbee Manna'. Other part of said chart

then refers to Anthropometric Measurements of

Maharashtra by authors like Irawati Karwe and Vishnu

Mahadeo Dandekar. Little later in this chart against serial

no. 3 while extracting some portion from Gazetteer of

India Maharashtra State Nagpur District (Revised

Edition) (First Edition 1908 and Second Edition (Revised

1966) under the heading "People of Hindu Caste

mentioned as Mana agriculturist", it is recorded that (i)

Manes and Dhanojes are the lowest sub-divisions (ii)

Manes appear to be Manas who have become Kunbis.

These portions relied upon by Committee, therefore,

show that the Committee itself has found that Manas

who have become Kunbis were recognized as Manes.

10. Though there is no other material to support these

recitals in Government Gazette, the position prevailing

prior to 1869-1870 or in 1908, therefore, shows that

then people from other castes/tribes were presenting

themselves as 'Kunbi Manas'. If Manes are original

Manas, we failed to understand as to how finding of

document recording caste as 'Mane' can itself be fatal to

the caste claim.”

The learned AGP has placed reliance on the judgment of

Sakshi D/o Govindrao Narnaware v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

19/20

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (supra), in which this Court

relied on Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad and others v. Deputy Director &

Member-Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati and others (Writ Petition No.12/2022, decided

on 17/04/2023) and held in para-17 as under:

“(17)Bare perusal of the above dictum, it appears

that this Court has categorically held that the persons

belonging to tribes or sub-tribes such as 'Badwaik Mana',

'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', "Kshatriya Badwaik

Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana',

'Mani'/'Mane', 'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Mana

Kunbi", 'Patil Mana', etc. cannot be held to be included

in the Scheduled Tribe "Mana", in entry 18 in the

Presidential (ST) Order 1950. Thus, one cannot claim

the status of a Scheduled Tribe.”

However, it is informed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that this judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble

Apex Court by the petitioners therein and there is stay to the effect,

operation and execution of the said judgment.

20. In view of above discussion, the petitioners are entitled to

get validity certificates. Hence, all the writ petitions are allowed.

21. The impugned orders dated 11/04/2018 in Case No.lvk@

vtizrlukx@III/130/31/2015 (Writ Petition No.5892/2018), dated

29/12/2017 in Case No.lvk@vtizrl@ukx@II/133/31/12-13 (Writ

KHUNTE

WP-5892.18+2-J.odt

20/20

Petition No.1039/2018) and dated 17/09/2018 in Case No.lvk@

vtizrlukx@III/148/31/2013 (Writ Petition No.8007/2018), passed

by the respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside.

22. It is held and declared that the petitioners have duly

established that they belong to "Mana” Scheduled Tribe. The

respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Nagpur is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of “Mana”

Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners within a period of four weeks.

23. Since the petitioners are presently working in their

respective departments, the interim order, if any, is confirmed. In view

of disposal of the petitions, the pending application(s), if any, is(are)

disposed of.

24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as

to costs.

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

KHUNTE