AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. DESHPANDE, J
Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
The claim of the petitioner for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' at Entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 has been
invalidated by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, by an order dated 25Â10Â2017, which is the subjectÂmatter of challenge in
this petition. The validity was sought by the petitioner for the purposes of admission to First Year MBBS Course. The petitioner, after qualifying
NEET Examination on 4Â6Â2018, is waiting for the rounds of admission to the MBBS Course.
The petitioner produced several documents, which are the part of School records of his forefathers/blood relatives the petitioner indicating their
caste as 'Mana' during the years 1914 to 1943. The relationship of the petitioner with all these persons, viz. Keshav, Ishwar, Dahpat, Dolan,
Yesuram, Jaijairam and Hiralal, is not at all disputed. The revenue records in the name of some of these persons pertaining to the years 1918Â19 to
1953Â55 and the birth extracts/certificates in respect of the children born to all these blood relatives recording the entry Caste 'Mana' during the years
1916, 1922 and 1927 are also not disputed.
The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (“the Committeeâ€) records the finding that the documents indicate the entries like
'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Mana Kunbi', 'Patil Mana', 'Mane', 'Mani', 'Kunbi', etc., which is a subÂcaste or class of 'Kunbi', a nonÂtribal
community. The documents do not speak of social status as tribe or caste when two different social status synonymous groups exist in Society, out
of which one is tribe and other is caste of other social status. The Committee holds that the socioÂcultural affinity test, therefore, plays a vital role.
The Committee holds that the Vigilance Cell has obtained adverse record and it, therefore, vide letters dated 13Â9Â2017, called the explanation of
validity holders Ku. Gayatri Tekram Ghormare, Ku. Ujwala Bhaurao Ghormare, Shri Aniruddha Baburao Ghormare, Shri Shobhit Ashok Ghormare,
Shri Ashish Ashok Ghormare, Ku. Vithabai Dahpat Ghormare (Sau. Nandatai Sheshrao Randiwe) and Shri Durwas Martand Ghormare, to whom the
Committee issued the Conditional Validity Certificates and, therefore, such certificates cannot be the basis for the petitioner to substantiate his
claim. The Committee further holds that the Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted in respect of these validity certificates and without reasoned
order and testing the affinity, the validity certificates were issued as per the directions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.
The Committee relies upon the Circular/Notification issued by the State of Maharashtra, Education and Sports Department indicating that 'Mana'
caste is classified under Other Backward Class category at Serial No.268 and later the said caste was classified under Special Backward Class
category at Serial No.2 in the list published by the Social Justice Department. The Committee holds that the Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â‐
1985 and 12Â9Â1986 prescribe the guidelines to check the synonymous nonÂtribal caste to restrict the obtaining of caste or tribe certificates by
pseudo tribals.
The Committee relies upon the statements of the petitioner's father and paternal cousin grandfather Shri Ishwardas Kashiram Ghormare recorded
on 19Â8Â2017 and 22Â8Â2017 giving the traits, characteristics and customs of the community to which they belong and further records the finding
on comparison with the guidelines contained in the Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â1985 and 12Â9Â1986 that the same do not match with the
ordinary place of residence and socioÂcultural affinity with 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe.
The Committee relies upon the population census of 1971 and 1981 of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and holds that the group of
Scheduled Tribes listed at Serial No.18 in the Scheduled Tribes List, i.e. 'Gond', 'Rajgond', 'Arakh', etc., which includes 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe also
rose from 3, 31,798 in the year 1971 to 11, 62,735 in the year 1981. This enormous increase in the population is unexplainable. We now proceed to
deal with the findings of the Committee on merits:
Para 5 of the order of the Scrutiny Committee shows that the petitioner has produced about 109 documents on record in support of his claim for
'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. The documents include the school, birth and revenue records of the pre and postÂconstitutional period. Most of these
documents were forwarded by the Committee to the Police Vigilance Cell for verification as to their genuineness and correctness. The Police
Vigilance Cell conducted the home enquiry and submitted two reports dated 26Â8Â2017 and 7Â10Â2017, giving its opinion that the documents
obtained and the social status of the petitioner do not match with 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. The Committee considers all these documents and
records the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' either on the basis of the documents or on the basis
of the affinity test.
After going through both the Police Vigilance Cell reports and the findings recorded by the Committee in respect of documentary evidence, we
find the following undisputed position in respect of the prominent school/college records, birth extracts and revenue extracts of the blood relatives of
the petitioner, which we narrate as under:
(a) In the school/college records of Â
(i) Dahpat Dolan, the cousin great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1914.
(ii) Yesuram Dudeshwar, the cousin uncle of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1914.
(iii) Jaijairam Dudeshwar, the cousin uncle of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1922.
(iv) Hiralal Kashiram, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1934.
(v) Keshav Kashiram, the paternal grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the years 1937 and 1941.
(vi) Ishwardas Kashiram, the paternal cousin grandfather, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the years 1943 and 1958.
(vii) Narendra Keshavram Ghormare, the father of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the years 1970, 1972 and 1977.
(viii) Chandrashekhar Keshavram Ghormare, the nephew of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the years 1975 and 1978.
(ix) Rajesh Keshavram Ghormare, the uncle of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1975.
(b) In the birth/death extracts in respect of Â
(i) Female child born to Dolan Mana, the great great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1922.
(ii) Male child born to Dudeshwar, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner, at Mouza Kumbhali, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1916.
(iii) Manya, the cousin great great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Kunbi' was recorded in the year 1925. (This is a disputed entry).
(iv) Male child born to Kashiram, the great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Mana' was entered in the year 1927.
(v) Kashiram s/o Puna, the great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Patil Mana' was entered in the year 1927.
(vi) Nandlala, the cousin great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Patil Mana' was entered in the year 1928.
(vii) Tulshiram Jaijairam Dudeshwar, the caste 'Patil Mana' was entered in the year 1953.
(viii) Sonpat, the cousin great great grandfather of the petitioner, the caste 'Patil Mana' was entered in the year 1954.
(ix) Tima Norba s/o Dolan, the caste 'Patil Mana' was entered in the year 1955.
(x) In the death record in the name of Dudeshwar s/o Mana, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner, the entry 'Patil Mana' was recorded in the year
1953, and the remark given by the Police Vigilance Cell was that there is insertion in the word 'Mana' in different ink.
The remark was given “eqG vfHkys[k e/;s ^ekuk^ 'kCnke/khy ^ek^ ;k v{kjkph dkuk osxG;k 'kkbZus vks(c) In the revenue records Â
(i) The caste of Dudeshwar s/o Mana, the paternal cousin cousin grandfather of the petitioner, was recorded in PÂ1 register as 'Mana' in the year
1918Â19. (Document No.23)
(ii) the caste of Kashiram s/o Puna, the paternal real great grandfather of the petitioner, was recorded as 'Mana' in PÂ1 register in the year 1918Â19.
(Document No.23).
(iii) the caste of Dolan s/o Neu Patil was entered as 'Mana' in PÂ1 register in the year 1918Â19. (Document No.56).
(iv) the caste of Dudeshwar s/o Mana and Kashiram s/o Puna was entered as 'Mana' in PÂ1 register in the year 1918Â19. (Document No.57).
(v) The Vigilance Cell found the entry in the name of Dolan s/o Neu Patil in PÂ1 register, recorded as 'Mane Ku' in the year 1918Â19, and in respect
of Kashiram s/o Puna, the paternal real great grandfather of the petitioner, the entry was found as 'Mana Ku', and cousin grandfather Dudeshwar s/o
Mana, the entry was found as 'Ku Mana'.
(vi) The entry in the name of Dudeshwar s/o Mana, the great grandfather of the petitioner, was recorded as 'Mana Kunbi' in PÂ6 register in the year
1918Â19.
The matter was heard on several dates and the parties were put a specific question and time was granted to them to answer it. After going
through the documents produced by the petitioner as well as those obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell and the findings recorded by the Committee,
we find that the entry 'Mana' plays a dominant role in all the documents produced.Â
According to the Police Vigilance Cell reports and the findings recorded by the Committee, the caste of the petitioner and his blood relatives is
shown in certain documents as 'Patil Mana', 'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Ku Mane', 'Mana Kunbi' and 'Kunbi'. Mostly, the entries of 'Patil
Mana', according to the Committee, are in the birth or death register extracts. The other entries like 'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Ku Mane',
'Ku Mane', 'Mana Kunbi', 'Kunbi', etc., according to the Committee, are found to be recorded in the revenue records.Â
On 27Â6Â2018, we, therefore, passed an order, which is reproduced below:
“We put a specific question to the learned AGP appearing for the Scrutiny Committee as to whether the entry 'Patil Mana' referred to in the order
impugned, as shown in the documents represents altogether a different caste than 'Mana â€" Scheduled Tribe'. The answer is that there exists no
caste like 'Patil Mana' and the 'Patil' is the suffix to the surname.
We then asked a specific question to the learned AGP appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, as to how entry 'Mane Ku' referred to in the impugned
order, as shown in the documents, is understood by the Committee. The petitioner and his forefathers are resident of village Kumbli and the contention
of the petitioner is that 'Ku' indicating the short name of the village, is the suffix or prefix to the caste or tribe entry 'Mane' or 'Mana' and there is no
separate caste or subÂcaste, tribe or subÂtribe as “Ku Mana, Ku Mani, Mana Ku, or Mani Kuâ€. Reliance is placed on the clarification by the
Revenue Department which issued such documents. We therefore expect the learned AGP appearing for the Scrutiny Committee to highlight
before us the position in respect of it.
It is informed to us that certain documents were produced by the petitioner during the course of hearing, but the same were not forwarded to the
Police Vigilance Cell for verification. We wanted to know from the Committee as to whether such documents were taken into consideration by the
Committee without sending it for verification through the Police Vigilance Cell in exercise of its power under Rule 12(2) of the Rules, particularly if
the findings are recorded in respect of these documents on their merits.
We also asked a specific question in respect of document at Sr. No.92, which is referred to as a zerox copy of the form of mutation register in respect
of Kasi s/o Puna and Budeshwar s/o Mna or Mana issued on 13.09.1939. The finding of the Committee is that during the vigilance enquiry, the Naib
Tahsildar, Sakoli orally informed that such record was never issued by their office. We were represented to believe in this regard the letter dated
24.08.2017 produced before us, issued from the office of Naib Tahsildar, Sakoli and we find that it was in response to the communication dated
24.08.2017 in which the query was in respect of birth entries of certain blood relatives of the petitioner. We wanted the explanation of the
Committee in respect of it.
The Police Vigilance Cell Report in respect of document PÂ6 'kista bandi khatawani Form BÂ1†of the year 1938Â39, in the name of
“Dudeshwar vald Mna Patil Mana' is referred to and it is stated that such document is not available. But we are shown such document at page
238 of the petition and we find that the entry in respect of Dudeshwar is of 'Mana Kunbi'. We therefore put a specific question to the learned AGP
appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, as to whether the Scrutiny Committee wants to rely upon this document, particularly when this document is said
to be nonÂexistent by the Police Vigilance Cell.
We asked a specific question to the learned AGP appearing for the Scrutiny Committee to tell us as to whether “Mana Kunbi†is a separate caste
in existence.
We direct the Committee to provide us a list of documents on which reliance is placed to reject the claim.
The Committee is expected to answer all these questions by tomorrow.
Put up on tomorrow, 28.06.2017.â€Â
The Committee files its response to this order in writing in Marathi. In the school records of the blood relatives, the entry 'Mana' is consistent
and there is no entry other than 'Mana'. The learned AGP for the Committee confirms its stand that there is no separate caste or tribe called as
'Patil Mana', and 'Patil' is the suffix to the surname in the birth and death extracts, which is followed by the caste or tribe 'Mana'. Thus, the
significance of 'Patil Mana' to reject the claim is lost. In respect of the entries like 'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Ku Mane', etc., in the
revenue records, the letter of the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, clearly shows that prefix or suffix 'Ku' to the entry 'Mana', 'Mani' or 'Mane'
is indicative of the name of Village Kumbhali, which is the place of residence of the petitioner or his blood relatives. The significance of these
entries to reject the claim is also lost. After taking instructions from the Committee, the learned AGP states that there is no separate caste or tribe
by name 'Mana Kunbi' included in the list of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class or Special Backward Class category, in the
State of Maharashtra.Â
In the order of the Committee, a specific finding is recorded that the father of the petitioner orally stated that a copy of PÂ6, which is a revenue
record of 'Kista Bandi Khatawani Form BÂ1' of the year 1938Â39, in the name of Kashiram s/o Puna Patil Mana, is a private record and not a public
document. However, before this Court, after taking instructions from the Committee, it is conceded that PÂ6 is a revenue record and a public
document. The finding in respect of insertions or corrections in the documents is insignificant, as it does not change the entry either one way or the
other. The Committee has expressed in writing its apology for such kind of mistakes as a result of nonÂapplication of mind.Â
It is conceded before us that the Committee has taken into consideration certain documents produced by the petitioner during the course of
hearing, believing them to be true and correct, and without forwarding them to the Police Vigilance Cell for enquiry and verification, in its discretion
under Rule 12(2) of the Rules and the findings are recorded that the entries in the City Reports in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioner
showing the caste 'Mana' recorded on 15Â3Â1909, 13Â3Â1909, 22Â9Â1909, 28Â12Â1909, 15Â3Â1910, 13Â3Â1910, and 8Â10Â1910, and the
revenue records, viz. PÂ1, PÂ6, SÂ16 and SÂ21, the documents of 'Kistabandi', 'Jamabandi', 'Bandobast Misal', etc., of the years 1909, 1915Â16,
1919, and 1938Â39 indicate the caste entry as 'Mana' in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioner. It is also brought to our notice by the
Committee that the entries in the birth and death register extracts of 16Â8Â1916, 18Â10Â1927, 12Â11Â1954 and 16Â10Â1953 indicate the caste
entry as 'Mana' in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioner. Thus, there is no impediment in considering these documents and relying upon
them.
In view of the aforesaid position and appreciation of the entries contained in the documents of pre and postÂconstitutional period in the form of
school records, birth and death extracts and revenue records, we are of the view that the Committee has misconstrued the entries in the documents.Â
The Police Vigilance Cell and the Committee has artificially attached 'Patil†as prefix to 'Mana', to show that 'Patil Mana' is a separate caste, which
actually is a suffix to the surname. The entry 'Mana' in the documents is to be separately and independently read from the prefix 'Patil', as indicating
a tribe. We are also of the view that prefix or suffix 'Ku', attached to the entry 'Mani', 'Mane' or 'Mana', is indicative of the name of Village of
residence of the blood relatives of the petitioner, in respect of whom the entry is made â€" the Village being Kumbhali. The entries 'Mane Ku', 'Mana
Ku', 'Ku Mana', etc., do not represent an independent caste or tribe or subÂcaste or subÂtribe. The entries 'Mana', 'Mane', 'Mani', etc., in the
documents have to be read independent of their prefix or suffix 'Ku'.  Â
In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two', it is stated that the caste
'Mana' is also known as 'Mane' or 'Mani'. It is stated that etymologically, the word 'Mana' was probably derived from the word 'Mannya' or 'Mann',
i.e. honour, which the community held in high esteem. The Government Resolution dated 24Â4Â1985 also highlights the position that 'Mana' is
known as 'Mane', 'Mani'. The Committee also does not dispute such position. It is neither the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee nor the
fact that any separate caste or tribe or subcaste/tribe as 'Mane', 'Mani' or 'Mannya' exists in the State of Maharashtra. Such castes/tribes are also
not shown in the list of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State
Government. It is, therefore, of no significance that the community is described as 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane' or 'Mannya' and the entries have to be
treated as that of 'Mana'. The Committee has, therefore, erred in relying upon the entries of 'Mane' and 'Mani' to reject the claim.
It is urged that the entry 'Mana' in all the documents is in the 'Caste' column and not in the column of 'Tribe' and there is no evidence on record to
show that the petitioner or his blood relatives belong to 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. In our view, the concept of recognized Scheduled Tribe for the
purposes of giving benefits and concessions was not prevailing prior to 1950 and, therefore, only caste or community to which a person belonged was
stated in the birth, school and revenue records maintained. The documents are issued in the printed formats, which contain a column under heading
“Caste' and there is no separate column of 'Tribe'. While entering the name, the distinction between the caste and tribe is ignored. It is the
entire 'Mana' community all over the State which is conferred a status of recognized Scheduled Tribe.
In view of this, no significance can be attached to the entry of 'Mana' in the 'Caste' column in the documents and to reject the claim for 'Mana
Scheduled Tribe' on that count. The finding of the Committee to that extent cannot, therefore, be sustained.
In the decision of this Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513, this
Court considered a reference to 'Mana' in the book of “Castes and Tribes of Central Provinces, Volume IV†by Russell at pages 172 to 176. This
Court also considered the settlement report of Chanda District for the year 1869 â€" Chapter III dealing with aboriginal tribes and also to the report of
Backward Class Commission (Kalelkar Commission). A reference was also made to the Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â1985 and 15Â6Â1995,
which clarified that 'Mana' in entry No.18 is a subÂtribe of 'Gond', also called and known as 'Mani', 'Mane'. It was clarified that there is a caste
'Mana', which is a subÂcaste of 'Mana Kunbi', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Maratha Mana', etc., which is not covered by
entry No.18 of 'Gond', which is a main tribe. As such, a distinction was sought to be made between 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' called as 'Gond Mana'
and 'Mana', which is not a subÂtribe of 'Gond' but a subÂcaste of 'ManeÂKunbi', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Maratha
Mana', etc., for grant of benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes. This Court ultimately set aside all such Government Resolutions dated 24Â‐
4Â1985, 19Â6Â1988 and 15Â6Â1995, by which entry No.18 was sought to be distinguished or clarified and explained as 'Manas', who have affinity
with 'Gonds', or a subÂtribe of 'Gond'. It was held that 'Mana' in entry No.18 is a separate tribe, which has no affinity with 'Gonds'.Â
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 3 Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 407 = (2006) 4 SCC 98, the Apex
Court confirmed the aforesaid view and dismissed the appeal, holding that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dina v. Narayan Singh,
reported in 38 ELR 212, in which the distinction was made between 'Mana' on one hand and “Gond Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana',
'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., on the other hand to deprive the benefits of entry of 'Mana' at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950 was impliedly overruled in the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others,
reported in (2001) 1 Mh.L.J. 1.Â
The Committee invited our attention to the fact that the State of Maharashtra had sought review of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal by preferring Review Petitions No.488 of 2006 and 522 of 2006, which were dismissed by the Apex Court on
10Â8Â2006. The State Government thereafter preferred Curative Petition (C) No.4 of 2008, which was also ultimately dismissed on 26Â2Â2008;
as a result of which, the Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â1985, 19Â6Â1985 and 15Â6Â1995 on the basis of which 'Mana' community was
sought to be divided artificially into different categories, like Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond
Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for the grant of benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes, did not survive.
In our view, appreciation of evidence and interpretation of the caste/tribe entries contained in the documents is not prohibited. Â What is prohibited
is the interpretation of caste/tribe entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes) Order. For instance, if there are hundred
documents like in this case, 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 subÂcaste/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.
The Division Bench of this Court in the decision of this Court in the case of Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. HeadÂMaster, Govt. Ashram
School, Dongargaon Salod and others, reported in 2018(2) Mh.L.J. 460, to which one of us, R.K. Deshpande, J., is a party, has considered several
aspects of the findings recorded by the Committee in detail and we need not repeat the same here. However, we would like to explain some
position in para 12 of the said decision, which is reproduced below:
“12. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind's case, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be
excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India only by the Parliament by law and by no
other authority. To hold that 'Mana' in Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order does not include 'Kshtriya Badwaik Mana',
'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., would amounting to permitting evidence to be let in to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized
Scheduled Tribe. Such tinkering with the Presidential Order is not permissible. Once it is established that 'Mana' is a tribe or even a subÂtribe, it
is not permissible to say that it is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Entry No.18 of the Order. The Scrutiny Committee has failed to understand
such effect of overruling the decision in Dina's case.â€
In para 12, we have held “To hold that 'Mana' in Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order does not include 'Kshatriya Badwaik
Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., would amount to permitting evidence to be let in to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the
recognized Scheduled Tribe.†This observation is made after recording a specific finding that the entries in the documents having probative value are
interpreted and held to be of 'Mana' community and not 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana' 'Kunbi Mana', etc. If on interpretation
of entries in the document, it is held that entries are of 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., the
claim cannot be validated. The test to be applied is to find out first whether the entries contained in the documents produced are to be interpreted as
the entry 'Mana', and whether it resembles with the entry 'Mana' at serial No.18 in the cluster of entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
represented by tribe 'Gond'.
Keeping in view the factual position narrated above, the law laid down and on appreciation of the pre and postÂconstitutional documents of
voluminous in nature in relation to the blood relatives of the petitioner, we hold that it is conclusively established that the entries in all such documents
are that of 'Mana' community, which is a tribe in the cluster of tribes represented by 'Gond' at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950.
In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in 2011(6) Mh.L.J.
(S.C.) 919, it is made clear in para 22 that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on preÂindependence
documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to postÂindependence
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. In respect of affinity test, the Apex Court has laid down that a cautious approach has to be
adopted and with the migration, modernization 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.
We have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner having conclusively established his claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' on the basis of the
documents having probative value, there was no occasion for the Scrutiny Committee, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Anand's case, cited
supra, to raise a doubt and invoke the affinity test to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim.
Be that as it may, the Committee has applied the affinity tests laid down in the Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â1985, 19Â6Â1988 and 15Â‐
6Â1995, which are essentially meant to find out as to whether the entry 'Mana' in the documents is a subÂtribe of 'Gond' or a subÂtribe of 'Kshatriya
Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', etc. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mana Adim Jamat
Mandal's case, cited supra, the community 'Mana' included in the cluster of tribes led by 'Gond' in entry No.18, is declared to be an independent tribe,
which is neither a subÂtribe of 'Gond' nor a subÂtribe of 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', etc. The
Government Resolutions have already been set aside. Hence, the affinity tests prescribed in all such Government Resolutions have lost their
significance and are no longer available to the Committee to reject the claim.
The decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6
SCC 241, lays down in guideline No.5, the procedure for collecting the traits, characteristics, customs, rituals, etc., prevailing in a particular community
and enquiry is required to be conducted and the statements of the persons having knowledge of social status, considered to be the genuine tribals are
required to be recorded. An opportunity is also required to be given to the claimants to crossÂexamine such persons deposing the affinity test. It
is only upon such a test laid down or prescribed, the affinity test can be invoked as a corroborative test and it cannot be used as a substantive evidence
to reject the claim, which is established conclusively on the basis of the documents produced on record.
It is urged before us that while issuing the caste validity certificates in the names of the father and other blood relatives of the petitioner, the Police
Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted. Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate
Rules, 2003 being relevant, is reproduced below:
 “12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee.
(2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the
applications to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry.â€
It is the discretion of the Scrutiny Committee whether the claim is to be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting school, home and other
enquiry. If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, then only it can forward the documents to the
Vigilance Cell. But if the Committee records its satisfaction on the basis of documentary evidence produced and issues a validity certificate, it
cannot question its correctness, legality or binding nature or finality attached to it under subÂsection (2) of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, DeÂNotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001) on the ground that the Police Vigilance
Cell enquiry was not conducted. The Committee, in our view, was wrong in ignoring the caste validity certificates issued in the name of the father of
the petitioner validating his claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.Â
This question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. Para 7 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below:
“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.â€
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. 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.â€Â    Â
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 in
Civil Appeal No.5270 of 2004. A merely different view on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative would not entitled the Committee to
reject the claim. If the Committee is permitted to alter or change its view repeatedly, it would create an anomalous situation that each of the blood
relatives would be of different caste/tribe and finality attached would become redundant. In our view, therefore, the Committee ought to have
validated the certificate in favour of the petitioner.
In view of above, 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 established his claim on the basis of the
documents produced on record for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the following order is passed:
(I) The order dated 25Â10Â2017 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(II) The claim of the petitioner for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is an Entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is
held to be valid.
(III) The Committee is directed to issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of ten days from today.
(IV) The respondents are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for admission to MBBS Course assuming that the claim of the petitioner is
valid for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', without waiting for the issuance of the caste validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.