1
wp2456.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2456 of 2013
Ku. Rajashri D/o Rameshrao Gajbe,
Aged about 19 years,
Occupation - BE Part-I Student,
Resident of Care of Shri Sudhakarrao
Kathe,
Kirti Nagar, Plot No.170,
Dighori, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur Division,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan,
Nagpur.
2. Yashwantrao Chavan College of
Engineering,
through its Principal,
Hingna Road, Wana Dongri,
Nagpur.
3. Nagpur University,
through its Registrar,
Civil Lines,
Nagpur. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 :::
2
wp2456.13.odt
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1.
Ms Arti Singh, Advocate, holding for Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & M.G. Giratkar, JJ.
Date : 17th November, 2017 Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating the claim of the petitioner for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe Category, which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and consequently cancelling and confiscating the caste certificate dated 22-6-2009 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol, District Nagpur, in the name of the petitioner as belonging to 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe.
2. Before the Committee, the petitioner produced twenty-three documents on record, which all recorded the caste ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 3 wp2456.13.odt of the petitioner and her blood relatives as 'Mana'. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted home enquiry and submitted its report on 18-11-2011. The report finds that in the revenue record (Bandobas Khasra) for the year 1912-13, the case of Bala alias Laxman, the great grandfather of the petitioner, is recorded as 'Mani'; whereas the castes of Manik Bala, the grandfather of the petitioner; Ramesh Manikrao Gajbe, the father of the petitioner; and Ragho Bala, the cousin paternal grandfather of the petitioner, are recorded as 'Mana' in the revenue records for the year 1932, 2008 and 1942 respectively.
3. The Committee holds that the caste 'Mani' is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra and rejects the contention of the petitioner that the caste 'Mani' was wrongly entered instead of 'Mana'. The petitioner produced the caste validity certificate dated 30-7-2008 in the name of Ramesh Manikrao Gajbe, the father; and the caste validity certificate dated 5-4-2008 in the name of Ganesh Manikrao Gajbe, the uncle, validating their claim for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 4 wp2456.13.odt Category. The Committee further holds that the certificates were issued without conducting home enquiry through the Police Vigilance Cell.
4. In the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3308 of 2013 [Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. The Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur, and others] decided on 8-11-2017, we have dealt with all such issues in detail and we rely upon the law laid down in the said decision. We need not reiterate everything which we have said in the said decision. However, certain aspects are required to be dealt with as under :
5. On the aspect that there are non-tribal communities, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., we have considered in Gajanan's case, the impact of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1, which overruled the earlier decision in ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 5 wp2456.13.odt Dina v. Narayan Singh, reported in 38 ELR 212. In paras 11 and 12 of the said decision, we have held as under :
"11. ... 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 '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. ... 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." ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 6
wp2456.13.odt
6. On the aspect of inclusion of 'Mana' Community in the Other Backward Classes/Special Backward Classes category, we relied upon the decision of this Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513, which is confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98. In paras 13 and 14 of Gajanan's case, we have held as under :
"13. ... This view has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98, and it is specifically held that 'Mana' is a separate Scheduled Tribe by itself included in Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order and it is not a sub-tribe of 'Gond'."
"14. This Court has held and it is confirmed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions that even if it is assumed that there was a separate entity, which is called as 'Mana' in Vidarbha Region, which has no affinity with ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 7 wp2456.13.odt 'Gond' tribe, that community would also fall within the scope of the Scheduled Tribes Order by virtue of the Amendment Act, 1976, and the State Government was not entitled to issue orders or circulars or resolutions contrary thereto. It holds that since under Entry 18, 'Manas' are specifically included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra, 'Manas' throughout the State must be deemed to be Scheduled Tribe by reason of provisions of the Scheduled Tribes Order. Once 'Manas' throughout the State are entitled to be treated as a Scheduled Tribe by reason of the Scheduled Tribes Order as it now stands, it is not open to the State Government to say otherwise, as it has purported to do in various Government Resolutions. It further holds that it is not open to the State Government or, indeed to this Court to embark upon an enquiry to determine whether a section of 'Manas' was excluded from the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes Order."
7. In para 18 of the said decision, we have considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2004(9) SCALE 316, and we have held that 'Mana' Community through the State is a class ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 8 wp2456.13.odt as a whole and to artificially sub-divide or sub-classify it to exclude different groups like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for denying the benefits of Scheduled Tribe is not only without authority but violative of Articles 14 and 342 of the Constitution of India.
8. In para 19 of the said decision, we have held that 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 a printed format, which contains a column under the heading 'Caste' and there is no column of 'Tribe', the name of tribe is shown in column of 'Caste'. The fact that 'Mana' is entered in 'Caste' column does not mean that it is not a tribe.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 9
wp2456.13.odt
9. It is not the finding of the Committee that 'Mani' is a separate 'Tribe' or 'Caste' other than 'Mana'. Though in this case entry in the year 1912-13 is 'Mani', it is solitary and all subsequent entries are of 'Mana', which we find to be in conformity with the explanation furnished by the petitioner that the first entry 'Mani' was made by mistake, which is not repeated in subsequent entries.
10. Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 runs as under :
"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."
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 10
wp2456.13.odt In view of the aforesaid Rule, if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, the case can be forwarded to the Police Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. However, if the Committee is satisfied on the basis of the documents produced that no further enquiry is necessary through the Police Vigilance Cell, it has a discretion to decide the case and pass the order issuing the caste validity certificate.
11. In view of this position and the decision of the decision of the Division Bench of this case in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, which has been consistently followed, we hold that the Committee ought to have validated the claim of the petitioner for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe Category on the basis of two validity certificates issued in the name of the father and uncle of the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 11
wp2456.13.odt
12. In view of above, we allow this petition in the following terms :
(i) The order 1-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating the claim of the petitioner for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe Category and cancelling and confiscating the caste certificate dated 22-6-2009, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is declared that the petitioner has established her case for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe Category, which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and we direct the said Committee to issue accordingly a caste validity certificate in the name of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this judgment before it.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 ::: 12
wp2456.13.odt
(iii) We direct the respondent No.2-College and the respondent No.3-University to issue original 8th Semester Mark Sheet of B.E. Course and original decree certificate to the petitioner, if he has already been declared successful in the examination held in the month of June, 2016.
(iv) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 need not wait for production of caste validity certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, but shall issue the said documents within a period of two weeks upon production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner before them.
13. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
(M.G. Giratkar, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Lanjewar, PS ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:33:03 :::