AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.No.,Issues,Findings
1.,"Whether the tribe claim of the
applicants is proved by way of
documentary evidences/",No
2.,"Whether the tribe claim of the
applicants sustains by way of affinity
test?",No
3.,What order?,"A s per the final order
given below.
StenoÂcopy of the order is permitted.â€,,
In response to the aforesaid order, the Committee has filed an affidavit dated 16Â1Â2018, and it is stated in para 3 thereof as under :",,
“3. At the outset, it is submitted that the answering respondent has utmost regard and respect of the majesty of the Court and every time complied",,
the order of this Hon'ble Court into its true letter and spirit. The observation made by the answering respondent in the order which is at para(n),,
while deciding issue no.2 and reproduced by the petitioner, is unintentional and the Scrutiny Committee submits that the said observations are not",,
happily worded. The Scrutiny Committee submits that it had not intention of any harm to any person or persons or institutions in general or particular.,,
It is submitted that there was no intention to offend any person or institution and the answering respondent tenders its unconditional apology for the,,
words used in para (n) while deciding issue no.2.,,
That, it is matter of record that after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Mana Adim Jamat Mandal', Validity Certificate came to be issued in",,
enÂmass manner after issuance of Government Resolution dated 6.10.2006 without applying the statutory requirement of conducting Vigilance Cell,,
enquiry and applying affinity test and without properly verifying the preÂconstitutional documents.,,
Therefore, in certain matters in which validity came to be issued relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.5270/2004",,
State of Maharashtra vs  Mana  Adim  Jamat  Mandal,reported  in 2006 4 SCC page 98.â€",,
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.Â",,
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' is a subÂtribe of 'Gond', also called and known as 'Mani', 'Mane'. 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane (Kunbi)', 'Badwaik",,
Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana' are the subÂtribes of this tribe and the persons belonging to these subÂtribes are the pseudo tribals not",,
covered by entry No.18 lead by a main tribe 'Gond'. As such, a distinction was sought to be made between 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' and the other",,
entries, like 'Mani', 'ManeÂKunbi', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', etc., for grant of benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes.Â",,
This Court ultimately set aside all such Government Resolutions dated 24Â4Â1985, 19Â6Â1988 and 15Â6Â1995, by which 'Mana' in entry No.18",,
was sought to be distinguished or clarified and explained. This decision was ultimately confirmed by the Apex Court 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.Â",,
The decision by this Court and the Apex Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal has in an unambiguous term held that the earlier view taken by the,,
Apex Court in the decision 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 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.",,
In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two', 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. It is neither the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee nor a fact that any separate caste/tribe or,,
subÂcaste/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 Back Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State Government.",,
The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, to which one of us, R.K. Deshpande, J. is a party, 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, has considered several aspects of the findings",,
recorded by the Committee in detail and we need not repeat all those here. But few aspects need to be highlighted. This Court has considered,,
the effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Milind's case, cited supra. It is held in paras",,
11 and 12 in Gajanan's case by this Court as under :,,
“11. In Dina's case, the Apex Court considered the evidence led to establish that 'Mana' in Entry No.12 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)",,
Order, 1950 in relation to the State of Maharashtra was of 'Mana', which is a subÂtribe of 'Gond' (a main tribe) and it was not of 'Kashtriya Badwaik",,
Mana', which is a subÂtribe of 'Maratha'. The Court also rejected the argument that 'Mana' was an independent tribe, which had no affinity with",,
'Gond'. The effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case is that the entry 'Mana', which is now in the cluster of tribes at Serial No.18 in the",,
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, has to be read as it is and no evidence can be let in, to explain that entry 'Mana' means the one which is either",,
a 'subÂtribe of Gond' or synonym of 'Gond' and/or it is not a subÂtribe either of 'Maratha' or of any other caste or tribe.â€Â,,
“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 'Kashtriya 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. 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€,,
This Court has also considered in Gajanan's case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others,",,
reported in (2004) 9 SCALE 316, and it is held in para 18 as under :",,
“18. Applying the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah's case, it has to be held in the facts of the present that once it is clear that 'Mana' community is",,
included in entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, it has to be read as it is, representing a class of 'Mana' as a whole and it is not",,
permissible either for the Executive or for the Scrutiny Committee to artificially subÂdivide or subÂclassify 'Mana' community as one having different,,
groups, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani/Mane', etc., for the purposes of",,
grant of benefits available to a recognized Scheduled Tribe. To exclude such persons from the entry 'Mana', to be recognized as Scheduled Tribe,",,
amounts to interference, reÂarrangement, reÂgrouping or reÂclassifying the caste 'Mana', found in the Presidential Order and would be violative not",,
only of Article 342, but also of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification of entry 'Mana†in different categories, like 'Badwaik",,
Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for the purpose of conferring a status as a",,
recognized Scheduled Tribe is artificial and without any authority. The Committee has, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim by",,
holding that the documents produced simply indicate the caste 'Mana' and not 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.â€",,
Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case need to be considered as",,
under :,,
(a) The first and the oldest entry relied upon is in the name of Ganpati Jago, the paternal real grantfather/ paternal cousinÂcousin grandfather of the",,
petitioners, in the School Admission Register on 15Â7Â1920. At one place, the caste recorded is 'Mani', and at another place, it is recorded as",,
'Mana'. The finding recorded by the Committee in para 8 of its order shows that the concerned Head Master has given remarks that in the,,
Admission Register No.2, there is entry of same Ganpati Jago and his caste is mentioned as 'Mani' on 15Â7Â1920.",,
(b) The next entry is in the name of Shripat Dasru, the paternal cousinÂcousin grandfather/paternal real grandfather of the petitioners, indicating their",,
caste as 'Mani' recorded in the School Admission Register on 4Â3Â1922.Â,,
(c) The third entry is in the name of Jagannath Ragho, the paternal cousin grandfather of the petitioners, indicating the caste as 'Mana' in the School",,
Admission Register on 3Â4Â1922.Â,,
(d) Thereafter the birth extracts in the name of male child born to Dasru Kisan, the paternal cousinÂcousin grandfather/paternal real grandfather, and",,
Ganpat Ragho, the paternal cousin uncle, indicating the caste as",,
'Mana' recorded on 13Â7Â1923 and 14Â7Â1943.Â,,
(e) Thereafter two entries are showing the caste 'Mani' on 14Â10Â1943 and 26Â1Â1944. Thereafter one entry of,,
'Mana' is of 22Â3Â1946 and the other entry of 'Mani' is of 18Â10Â1946.Â,,
(f) The house tax assessment extract of the years 1937Â38 to 1939Â40 and 1943Â44 to 1945Â46 indicates,,
the caste 'Mani'.Â,,
(g) The last entry prior to 1950 made on 17Â6Â1949 records the caste 'Mana' in the School Admission Register extract in the name of one Sudhakar,,
Jagannath, the",,
paternal cousinÂcousin uncle of the petitioners.Â,,
It is thus apparent that the entries are mixed entries of 'Mani' and 'Mana' in the old documents prior to 1950 in relation to the blood relatives of the,,
petitioners. On appreciation of the entries in all the pre and postÂconstitutional period, and the law laid down, as discussed above, we hold that the",,
petitioners have established on the basis of such documentary evidence that the entries therein are of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', covered by entry 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=(2012) 1 SCC 113, the Apex Court has held in para 22 that while dealing with 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 postÂ‐",,
independence 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 the affinity test, the Apex Court has laid down that a cautious",,
approach has to be adopted, and with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt",,
new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It holds that the affinity test may not be regarded as,,
litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a 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 and rather it is an undisputed factual position that none of the documents produced by the petitioners or obtained by,,
the Police Vigilance Cell during the course of enquiry indicate the caste of the petitioner or their ancestors/blood relatives other than 'Mani' or 'Mana'.,,
The several documents evidencing such entry are of preconstitutional period, having a probative value. In our view, therefore, there was no",,
occasion for the Scrutiny Committee to raise a doubt and to invoke the affinity test to exclude certain categories of 'Mana' on the ground that they are,,
of higher caste or tribe has to be ruled out and to hold that the claim is not genuine. The Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to carry out such,,
exercise to invalidate the claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.,,
So far as the caste validity certificates issued in the names of the fathers and other blood relatives of the petitioners validating their claim for,,
'Mana Scheduled Tribe' are concerned, we have already taken a note of the stand of the Committee in its affidavit filed in response to the order",,
passed by this Court, reproduced above. For recording the finding that the nonÂtribal Mana other caste people have deliberately misled the",,
Government Authorities and misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, cited supra, an apology has",,
been tendered. It is no doubt true that the decision of the Apex Court does not bar the enquiry and the verification between the genuine 'Scheduled,,
Tribe Mana' and nonÂtribal other caste 'Mana' communities, but the claim has to be tested on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Anand's",,
case, cited supra. The affinity test cannot override the entries in the documents having probative value.Â",,
It is urged before us that while issuing the caste validity certificates in the names of the father and other blood relatives of the petitioners, 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 names of the fathers",,
of the petitioners validating their 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.Â,,
There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of t he 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 fathers of the petitioners 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 petitioners.,,
All other aspects have already been dealt with by us in our decision in Gajanan's case, cited supra, and we need not reproduce the principles laid",,
down therein.,,
In the result, both these petitions are allowed by passing the following order :",,
(I) The common order dated 22Â6Â2017 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in both these",,
petitions are hereby quashed and set aside.,,
(II) It is declared that the claim of the petitioners for 'Mana', which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is",,
valid and accordingly the Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificates separately in the names of the petitioners within a period of,,
ten days from today.,,
(III) Needless to mention that the authorities concerned with the admission of the petitioners in the Engineering/MBA Course shall treat the petitioners,,
belonging to reserved category of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' on the basis of this judgment itself, without waiting for issuance of caste validity certificate",,
by the Scrutiny Committee and accordingly process their claim for admission in accordance with law.,,
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.,,