// VERSUS // v. Kurkheda, Dist. Gadchiroli

Judgment

5. Gadchiroli Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chairman, Committee for Scheduled Tribe Claims, Office at Complex Area, Gadchiroli, Tq. & Distt. Gadchiroli. through State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Development Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. The Principal Elena School of Nursing (Maharashtra Nursing Council), Surbodi, Bramhapuri, Dist. Tq. Chandrapur 441206 Bramhapuri, The Registrar, Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education (M.S.B.N.P.E) Office at Bombay Mutual Anne Building, 5th Floor, Rustam Sidhwa Marg, Opposite Residency Hotel, Fort, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400 001. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kurkheda, Tah. Kurkheda, Dist. Gadchiroli ... Respondents

Shri P.P.Dhok, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. P.C.Bawankule, AGP for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 5. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE J.) Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1/State. Despite, service of the notice upon the respondent nos 3 and 4, none appears.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, in respect of caste verfication of petitioner invaliding the petitioner belongs to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe claim.

3. As per the contention of the petitioner, he belongs to “Mana” community which is declared as Scheduled Tribe and listed under Sr.No.18 of the Scheduled Tribe List in relation to the State of Maharashtra under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2000. Earlier Mana Community was declared as Scheduled Tribe in 1956, in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. In perusal to the recommendations and reports, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Community i.e. “Mana” community is recognized as Scheduled Tribe and entry no.18 was accordingly carried out in list under the Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner applied for “Mana” Scheduled Tribe Certificate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kurkheda, Dist. Gadchiroli. Respondent no.5 after inquiry issued caste certificate to the petitioner in Rev. Case No. MRC-40544013322 of village Bhagwanpur, Tah. Kurkeda, Dist. Gadchiroli on 02.01.2019. By this certificate, the petitioner was declared as “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. Caste claim was forwarded for validation on 10.03.2023. As after passing 12 th Standard examination of Higher Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt Secondary School Certificate, the petitioner made application for General Nursing and Midwifery 3 years Degree Course in the college of the respondent no.3 and admitted in the college of the respondent no.3. As the petitioner has claimed the benefit of Scheduled Tribe being of “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner submitted her claim for verification to the respondent no.1, Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli along with all the required documents on 05.12.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite she had complied with all he requirements for verifivation and also relied upon pre-constitutional documents, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on 26.06.2024. Hence, this petition.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he placed genealogical tree which shows that one Hana Mana is his great great grandfather who is having son by name Vithu, who is the great grand-father of the petitioner. Said Vithu was having his son Tulshiram who is the grand father of the present petitioner and Pralhad is the father of the petitioner. It is contended that the grandfather Tulshiram was admitted in school and while admitting him in school his birth date was recorded as 24.06.1949 and in school record he was recorded as “Mana”. Thus, pre-constitutional documents, the petitioner relied upon which refers his grandfather as “Mana” which was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee and invalidated the claim illegally.

5. The said petition is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that the petitioner fails to prove his caste claim as he belongs to “Mana”. The vigilance is also carried out and after considering the documents on record which nowhere Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt discloses that during the pre-independence era, the fore fathers of the petitioner was recorded as “Mana” and therefore Committee has rightly invalidated the claim.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who invited our attention towards the document i.e. school leaving certificate which shows that grandfather of the present petitioner namely Tulshiram was admitted in the school and his birth date was recorded as 24.06.1949 and he was recorded as “Mana”. Thus, pre- constitutional documents is there which has probative value and on the basis of said document, the petitioner has already proved his caste claim. He has also invited our attention towards the vigilance report, wherein also the reference of the document is 1949 is there which is also ignored by the Scrutiny Committee.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention towards the entry no.1 which is mentioned in the said vigilance report by name Tulshiram shown as a grand father and he was admitted in school on 01.07.1957 and his birth entry was recorded as 24.06.1949. Thus, since pre independence era, the petitioner and his fore fathers are recorded as “Mana”. Thus, considering the entry which is of pre-indepdence era, the petitioner has established that he belongs to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has also ignored the said vigilance report which is supporting to the petitioner case. For over all above these grounds, he claims to grant validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the said contentions and submitted that as the petitioner could not prove his caste claim and therefore rightly rejected the caste claim. Therefore, no interference is called for.

9. After going through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as the vigilance report, it reveals that first and foremost questions is whether the petitioner could prove her caste claim as a “Mana”. Admittedly, the documents which is filed before the Committee by the petitioner shows that grand father Tulshiram was born on

24.06.1949 and he was admitted in school on 01.07.1957, who was recorded as “Mana”. Now, it is well settled that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnished a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post independence document. In case the applicant is the first generation or ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult. But here in the present case, admittedly, the grandfather of the present petitioner was admitted in the school who was recorded as “Mana” and his birth date was recorded as 24.06.1949 which is pre-independence documents. In catena of decisions, it is held that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnished a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents. Insofar as the applicability of the affinity test is concerned, in various decisions including the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt Claims and others reported in 2012 (1) SCC 113 , wherein it is observed that while applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, 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. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a Scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner has placed on record his school record showing his grand father was admitted in the school and his birth date was recorded of a pre-independence era, which indicates his caste as a ‘Mana’. On perusal of the entry, it is clear that the words ‘Mana’ written in the entry and the same is not denied by the Scrutiny Committee also. In view of the pre- independence documents, it is certified that petitioner’s grand father was recorded as “Mana”, we are of the considered opinion that a greater probative value ought to Sknair 42-wp-3086-25(j).odt have been given to the said document. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s claim as well as impugned judgment and final order of the Scrutiny Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass the following order. i. ii. The writ petition is allowed; The order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli is hereby quashed and set aside; iii. We direct the respondent no.1 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli to issue caste validity certificate to the present petitioner within eight weeks. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.] Sknair