Bombay High Court
Shubham Sharad Gadmade vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 21 June, 2018
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande
1
wp7589.7821.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7589 of 2017
And
Writ Petition No.7821 of 2017
Writ Petition No.7589 of 2017
Shubham Sharad Gadmade,
Aged 23 years,
Occupation - Unemployed Graduate (BE),
"Shivalay Apartments",
Plot No.218, Reshimbagh,
Opp. C.P. & Berar Vyayamshala,
Nagpur-440 009. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur,
through its Member Secretary,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth,
At & Post Nagpur-440 010.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur,
through its Chairman,
C/o Commissioner/Director,
TRTI (Tribal Research and Training
Institute),
28, Queens Garden,
Pune-411 001.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
2
wp7589.7821.17.odt
3. State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
CM Office,
Home Department,
Department of Tribal Development,
Department of General Administration,
Department of Law & Justice,
Mantralaya Extension,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-32. ... Respondents
Shri S.P. Khare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondents.
And
Writ Petition No.7821 of 2017
Mr. Vineet s/o Vilas Gadmade,
Aged 23 years,
Occupation - Student,
R/o Flat No.204,
Baba Santosh Arkade,
Ganesh Nagar, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, through its Deputy
Director and Member Secretary,
Giri Peth, Nagpur.
2. Karmaveer Dadasaheb Kannamwar
College of Engineering,
Great Nag Road,
Nandanwan,
Nagpur-440 009.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
3
wp7589.7821.17.odt
3. The Registrar,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj,
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
4. Sub Divisional Officer,
Umred, District Nagpur. ... Respondents
Shri Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 and 4.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Arun D. Upadhye, JJ.
st
Dated : 21 June, 2018
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. The claim of the petitioners for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe',
which is one of the tribes included in the cluster of tribes in the
entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950 has been rejected by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, by its common
order dated 22-6-2017, and this is the subject-matter of
challenge in both these petitions. The claim of the petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
4
wp7589.7821.17.odt
was verified by the Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of
admission to Engineering/MBA Course against the seat reserved
for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category.
2. Perusal of the order impugned shows that initially the
petitioners produced about 42 documents and thereafter
72 documents in support their claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
The Scrutiny Committee sent the said documents to the Police
Vigilance Cell to verify their genuineness and authenticity. The
Police Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 8-8-2016, observing
that the document of the year 1905, mentioned in para No.16, of
the order impugned, was found to be a bogus document. During
the enquiry, the Police Vigilance Cell obtained the school, birth,
death and revenue records, wherein the caste of the applicants'
blood relatives was found to be recorded. The Police Vigilance
Cell also recorded the statements of Manohar Ganpatrao
Gadmare, the paternal real uncle/paternal cousin-cousin uncle of
the petitioners on 7-4-2012 and 14-10-2014. The Committee
also recorded the statements of other relatives of the petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
5
wp7589.7821.17.odt
on 20-12-2012. The show cause notice was issued on 9-7-2012,
to which reply was filed on 4-8-2012. Again the Police Vigilance
Cell enquiry was conducted and the notices were issued on
16-7-2014 and 10-8-2015. After conducting detailed enquiry,
recording statements, issuing show cause notices and receiving
reply, the Committee heard the petitioners and their relatives.
3. The Committee framed the issues and recorded the
findings as under :
Sr.No. Issues Findings
1. Whether the tribe claim of the No
applicants is proved by way of
documentary evidences/
2. Whether the tribe claim of the No
applicants sustains by way of
affinity test?
3. What order? As per the final order
given below.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
6
wp7589.7821.17.odt
On Issue No.1, the Committee recorded the finding that in
the oldest records of the years 1920, 1922, 1937-38, 1943, 1944,
1945-46, 1946, 1949, 1954 and 1957, the entry is found as
'Mani' in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioners, though
in the other documents of the years 1962, 1971, 1974, 2000,
2004, 2008 and 2010, the entry is found as 'Mana'. In respect of
the caste validity certificates issued validating the claims of the
fathers of the petitioners and other blood relatives for 'Mana
Scheduled Tribe', the Committee holds that the validity
certificates were issued only as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5270 of 2004 without
conducting vigilance enquiry and going into the merits. It holds
that the socio-cultural affinity was not tested and the conditional
validity holders suppressed the entry of 'Mani' in the oldest
documents.
4. In para 40(n), the Committee observed as under :
"40) Issue No.2 - Whether the tribe claim of the
applicants sustains by way of affinity test? .. No.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
7
wp7589.7821.17.odt
n) Further, it is crucial to place on record that
non-tribal Mana other caste people deliberately misled
Government Authorities and mis-interpreted judgment of
this Hon'ble Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mana
Adim Jamat Mandal : (2006) 4 SCC 98. Even though in
the said judgment it was laid down that Mana in Entry
No.18 of List of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra has to
be treated independent Scheduled Tribe under the said
Entry No.18. Perusal of the entire judgment in (2006) 4
SCC 98 nowhere mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court
bar inquiry and verification between genuine Scheduled
Tribe Mana and non-tribal other caste Mana
communities. Even then those non-tribal other caste
Mana communities mislead the Government on the basis
of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal
No.5270/2004 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Mana Adim
Jamat Mandal) and went on obtaining validity
certificate only on the ground of that judgment."
While referring to the affinity test, the Committee made a
reference to the Government Gazette and the record of
Anthropological Survey of India pertaining to non-tribal 'Mana'
community. The Committee holds that the petitioners have
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
8
wp7589.7821.17.odt
failed to establish affinity with 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
5. On 4-12-2017, this Court passed an order as under :
" Heard.
Issue notice to respondents returnable on
18.12.2017.
Learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents.
Respondent nos.1 & 2 to file their reply without fail
by returnable date on observations in paragraph (n) of the
impugned order, while recording finding on issue no.2. If
they do not file reply, they shall remain present with
necessary records on that date.
Steno-copy of the order is permitted."
In response to the aforesaid order, the Committee has
filed an affidavit dated 16-1-2018, and it is stated in para 3
thereof as under :
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
9
wp7589.7821.17.odt
"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 en-mass 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 pre-constitutional documents.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
10
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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."
6. 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 -
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 24-4-1985 and 15-6-1995, which clarified that 'Mana' is a
sub-tribe of 'Gond', also called and known as 'Mani', 'Mane'.
'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane (Kunbi)', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana',
'Kshatriya Mana' are the sub-tribes of this tribe and the persons
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
11
wp7589.7821.17.odt
belonging to these sub-tribes 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', 'Mane-Kunbi', 'Badwaik Mana',
'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', etc., for grant of benefits
available to the Scheduled Tribes. This Court ultimately set
aside all such Government Resolutions dated 24-4-1985,
19-6-1988 and 15-6-1995, 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.
7. 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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
12
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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.
8. 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
sub-caste/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.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, to which
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
13
wp7589.7821.17.odt
one of us, R.K. Deshpande, J. is a party, in the case of Gajanan
s/o Pandurang Shende v. Head-Master, 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 sub-tribe
of 'Gond' (a main tribe) and it was not of 'Kashtriya
Badwaik Mana', which is a sub-tribe 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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
14
wp7589.7821.17.odt
be read as it is and no evidence can be let in, to explain that
entry 'Mana' means the one which is either a 'sub-tribe of
Gond' or synonym of 'Gond' and/or it is not a sub-tribe
either of 'Maratha' or of any other caste or tribe."
"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 sub-tribe, 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."
10. This Court has also considered in Gajanan's case, the
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
15
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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 sub-divide or sub-classify '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, re-arrangement, re-grouping or re-classifying
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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
16
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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'."
11. 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 cousin-cousin grandfather of the petitioners, in
the School Admission Register on 15-7-1920. 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 15-7-1920.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
17
wp7589.7821.17.odt
(b) The next entry is in the name of Shripat Dasru, the
paternal cousin-cousin grandfather/paternal real
grandfather of the petitioners, indicating their caste as
'Mani' recorded in the School Admission Register on
4-3-1922.
(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 3-4-1922.
(d) Thereafter the birth extracts in the name of male
child born to Dasru Kisan, the paternal cousin-cousin
grandfather/paternal real grandfather, and Ganpat
Ragho, the paternal cousin uncle, indicating the caste as
'Mana' recorded on 13-7-1923 and 14-7-1943.
(e) Thereafter two entries are showing the caste 'Mani'
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
18
wp7589.7821.17.odt
on 14-10-1943 and 26-1-1944. Thereafter one entry of
'Mana' is of 22-3-1946 and the other entry of 'Mani' is of
18-10-1946.
(f) The house tax assessment extract of the years
1937-38 to 1939-40 and 1943-44 to 1945-46 indicates
the caste 'Mani'.
(g) The last entry prior to 1950 made on 17-6-1949
records the caste 'Mana' in the School Admission Register
extract in the name of one Sudhakar Jagannath, the
paternal cousin-cousin uncle of the petitioners.
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 post-constitutional 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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
19
wp7589.7821.17.odt
entries therein are of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', covered by entry
No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
12. 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 pre-independence
documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative
value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to
post-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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
20
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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.
13. 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 pre-
constitutional 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'.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
21
wp7589.7821.17.odt
14. 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 non-tribal
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
non-tribal 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.
15. It is urged before us that while issuing the caste validity
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
22
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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."
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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
23
wp7589.7821.17.odt
question its correctness, legality or binding nature or finality
attached to it under sub-section (2) of Section 7 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 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'.
16. 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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
24
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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."
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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
25
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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 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."
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
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::
26
wp7589.7821.17.odt
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.
17. 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.
18. In the result, both these petitions are allowed by passing
the following order :
: O R D E R :
(I) The common order dated 22-6-2017 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 ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 ::: 27 wp7589.7821.17.odt 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.
19. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
(Arun D. Upadhye, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Lanjewar ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 00:38:27 :::