1
wp3010.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3010 OF 2013
Vaibhav s/o Girdhar Gharatkar,
Aged about 19 years,
Occupation - Student,
R/o Plot No.68, Vikas Colony,
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Chairman, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur-440010.
2. The Directorate of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai-400001.
3. The Principal,
Smt. Radhikatai Pandav College of
Engineering, Nagpur.
4. The Registrar,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 :::
2
wp3010.13.odt
Ms P.D. Rane, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.2.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) :
1. This petition challenges the order dated 12-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and cancelling and confiscating the caste certificate dated 17-7-2010 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umrer, District Nagpur, certifying that the petitioner belongs to 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
2. Before the said Committee, the petitioner produced total twenty documents in support of his claim for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted the home enquiry and ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 3 wp3010.13.odt obtained the extract of school admission register from the Head Master, Municipal Council Budhwari Primary School, Umrer, District Nagpur, wherein the caste of the petitioner's elder uncle Kisan Natthu Tukaram is recorded as 'Mani' on 16-6-1950, and younger uncle Nandu s/o Natthu Tukaram Gharatkar is recorded as 'Hindu-Mana' on 10-7-1970. The other extract of school admission register in the name of Gangadhar Natthu Tukaram, another elder uncle of the petitioner, recording the caste 'Mani' on 22-7-1959 was also obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell. The Committee relies upon these entries of 'Mani' and 'Hindu Mana' to hold that these castes are not included in Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, and applying the affinity test, rejects the claim of the petitioner for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
3. It is neither the finding recorded by the Committee, nor it is a fact that any separate caste/tribe or sub-caste/tribe as 'Mane' or 'Mani' or 'Hindu-Mana' exists in the State of Maharashtra. Such castes are also not shown in the list of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State Government for grant of benefits. In the ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 4 wp3010.13.odt publication of anthropological survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part II', the caste 'Mana' is dealt with and it recites that 'Mana' is also known as 'Mane' or 'Mani'. It states that etymologically, the word 'Mana' was probably derived from the word 'Mannya' or 'Mann', i.e. honour, which the Committee held in high esteem.
4. We have noticed the aforesaid entries relied upon by the Committee showing the caste as 'Mani' or 'Hindu-Mana'. It is not in dispute that the oldest document produced by the petitioner is the entry in the vaccination register in respect of a girl child born to Tukaram Fago, the great grand-father of the petitioner, recorded on 28-11-2018, indicating the caste as 'Mana'. Even in the case of the petitioner's elder uncle Kisan, we find the document at serial No.18 in the order of the Committee, which is a school certificate, wherein the caste is shown as 'Mana' at the time of leaving the school in the year 1955. Thus, the first entry in the name of Kisan recording 'Mane' is of 16-6-1950, whereas the entry in the year 1955 is of 'Mana'. Kisan and Nandu, both real uncles of the petitioner, are the sons of Tukaram. In respect of Kisan, the entry ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 5 wp3010.13.odt is of 'Mani' recorded on 16-6-1950 in the school admission register, whereas in respect of Nandu, it is of 'Hindu-Mana' recorded on 19-7-1970. In the primary school leaving certificate in the name of Giridhar, the father of the petitioner, the caste is recorded as 'Mana' on 1-10-1967. It is a fact that the petitioner produced the caste validity certificates dated 20-5-2006, 19-7-2007 and 2-4-2008 in the name of Arun and Anil, both cousin brothers of the petitioner; and Giridhar, the father of the petitioner, respectively certifying that their claim for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe' is valid. Thus, the confusion prevailing in the old documents gets completely cleared to hold that the caste of the petitioner and his paternal relatives has to be treated as 'Mana' in the documents having probative value.
5. 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, which is confirmed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98, it was the argument advanced that there are non-tribal communities, like 'Badwaik ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 6 wp3010.13.odt Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., in Vidarbha Region, and unless it is shown that they belong to 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe' in Entry No.18, they are not entitled to the benefits of Scheduled Tribe. It was also pointed out that 'Mana' Community is also included in the lists of Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes, and unless the affinity is established with 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry at serial No.18, the benefits meant for it cannot be availed. We have considered this aspect in para 13 of the decision in the case of Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. The Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur, and others, rendered in Writ Petition No.3308 of 2013 on 8-11-2017, and we, therefore, reproduce the said paras as under :
"13. In the decision of the Division Bench 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, it is held in para 22 as under :::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 7
wp3010.13.odt "22. It is clear from the plain reading of the aforesaid propositions that the Supreme Court was of the view that Dina's case - 38 ELR 212 was not decided correctly to the extent it held that enquiry was permissible and evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. In fact the court has clearly observed that no enquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter. In our view the Supreme Court decision in second Dina's case i.e. Dadaji @ Dina vs. Sukhdeo Baba and others which considered the effect of omission of the word "including", also cannot be taken to be good law after the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, though the said decision is not expressly overruled. The Constitution Bench overruled the first Dina case i.e. Dina vs. Narayan Singh with reference to Entry 12 of the Scheduled Tribes Order though the court did not specifically refer to second Dina's case. It is needless to say that the same stood impliedly overruled as the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Milind's case was contrary to what was stated in second Dina's case."::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 8
wp3010.13.odt In para 24 of the said decision, this Court has held as under :
"24. ... In any event even if it is assumed that there was a separate community which is called as Mana in Vidharbha region which has no affinity with Gond tribe that community would also fall within the scope of 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. 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. The Mana community in the instant case having been listed in the Scheduled Tribes Order as it now stands, it is not open to the State ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 9 wp3010.13.odt 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."
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'."
The Apex Court has 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'. The Division Bench of this Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal's case, cited supra, has held 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 benefits of the Scheduled Tribes Order. Following this decision, we have held in para 15 of Gajanan's case, cited supra, that the Committee was clearly in error in holding that 'Mana' Community ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 10 wp3010.13.odt was included in the list of Other Backward Classes and later on in the list of Special Backward Classes, and though the petitioner has established that he belongs to 'Mana' Community, it is not established that he belongs to 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
6. In para 18 of Gajanan's case, we have considered the decision of the Apex Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2004(9) SCALE 316, and it is held 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 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 11 wp3010.13.odt 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 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'."
We have held that 'Mana' Community throughout the State is a class as a whole, and to artificially sub-divide 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 recognized Scheduled Tribe is not only without any authority but violative of Articles 14 and 342 of the Constitution of India.
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 12
wp3010.13.odt
7. In para 19 of Gajanan's case, 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. We have also held that the documents are issued in the printed format, which contains a column under the heading 'Caste' and there is no column of Tribe. We have held that irrespective of the fact that it is a tribe, the name of tribe is shown in the column of Caste and while entering the name, the distinction between caste and tribe is ignored.
8. In view of the aforesaid position of law and the fact that there is no separate caste, sub-caste, tribe or sub-tribe, like 'Mani' or 'Mane' prevailing in the State of Maharashtra, and that such entry like 'Mani' or 'Mane" is not included either in the lists of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes in the State of Maharashtra, we are of the view that the Committee was in error in holding that the petitioner belongs to 'Mani' or 'Mane', which is not a tribe 'Mana' in Entry ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 13 wp3010.13.odt No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. In our view, the confusion prevailing in respect of entry like 'Mani'/'Mane' is absolutely clarified in all the subsequent documents pointed out earlier showing the caste of the petitioner and his blood relatives as 'Mana' in all other documents and the Committee, therefore, could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration the entries showing the caste 'Mani' or 'Mane'.
9. It is not in dispute that the Committee has issued the caste validity certificates dated 20-5-2006, 19-7-2007 and 2-4-2008 in the name of Arun and Anil, both real uncles of the petitioner; and Giridhar, the father of the petitioner. In view of the decision of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, in our view, the Committee could not have taken a different view of the matter, creating an anomalous situation that the caste of the father of the petitioner is held to be valid as 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', whereas the claim of the petitioner for the same tribe is invalidated. We cannot, therefore, sustain the order of the Committee.
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 14
wp3010.13.odt
10. In the result, this petition is allowed in the following terms :
(i) The order dated 12-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe' is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is declared that the caste certificate dated 17-7-2010 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umrer, District Nagpur, certifying that the petitioner belongs to '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 said Committee is, therefore, directed accordingly to issue the validity certificate in the name of the petitioner within a period of one month from the ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 ::: 15 wp3010.13.odt production of the copy of this judgment before it.
(iv) If any of the documents of the petitioner are withheld by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the ground of non-production of caste validity certificate of 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', the same shall be released to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of production of the copy of this judgment before them, by treating that the petitioner has established his claim for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
11. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
(M.G. Giratkar, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar, PS
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:11:54 :::