1 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4010 OF 2013
Ku. Pooja D/o Ramesh Ghodmare,
aged about 19 years, Occu : MBBS Student,
R/o Masal, Tq. Chimur,
District - Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
Division, Nagpur, through its
Member Secretary, Gadchiroli.
(2) N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical
Sciences and Lata Mangeshkar
Hospital, through it Dean, Digdoh
Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur-19.
(3) The Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences, Vani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik-422 004.
Respondent
(4) Shri A. S. Gunjal, Vice Chairman,
Nos. 4 to 6 the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
deleted vide Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
Court's order
dtd. 24-6-2014 (5) Shri S. S. Chavan, Member
Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
(6) Dr. R. D. Tribhuvan, Member,
the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
(7) State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 :::
2 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4044 OF 2013
Ku. Smita D/o Ramesh Ghodmare,
aged about 21 years, Occu : B.Sc.(Agri.) Student,
R/o Masal, Tq. Chimur,
District - Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
(Division) Nagpur, through its
Member Secretary, Gadchiroli.
(2) Shri Shivaji Krushi Mahavidyalaya,
Amravati, through it Principal,
Amravati.
Respondent
(3) Shri A. S. Gunjal, Vice Chairman,
Nos. 3 to 5 the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
deleted vide Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
Court's order
dtd. 24-3-2014 (4) Shri S. S. Chavan, Member
Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
(5) Dr. R. D. Tribhuvan, Member,
The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli.
(6) State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J. K. Matole, Advocate h/f Shri R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the
petitioners
Shri N. S. Rao, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 & 7 in WP 4010/13 and for respondent no. 1 & 6 in WP 4044/13
None for other respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 :::
3 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 29-11-2017 Common Judgment (Per : R. K. Deshpande, J) Both these petitions are filed by the real sisters challenging the order dated 17-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli invalidating their claim for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe which is a entry at serial no. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and cancelling and confiscating the caste certificates dated 12-6-2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur certifying that the petitioners belong to Mana, Scheduled Tribe.
2. Before the said committee, the petitioners produced 8 documents in support of their claim for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe. The oldest document produced is the school leaving certificate in the name of Patru Fago, the grandfather of the petitioners containing entry 'Mana' recorded on 3-7-1944. Another document is the land record of the year 1950-51 in the name of Sego, the great grandfather of the petitioners containing entry 'Mana'. The service book entries in the name of Patru, ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 4 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt the grandfather and Ramesh, the father of the petitioners contained entry 'Hindu (Mana)'. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted home enquiry and found the documents to be genuine and relate to the persons who are paternal/blood relatives of the petitioners.
3. In paragraph 14, the committee records the finding that the caste of the petitioners and their forefathers is consistently recorded as 'Mana' in their school and revenue records during the period from 1944 to 2006. However, the documents are rejected for the following reasons.
(a) that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra for the first time in the year 1960, that too in the specified area only, and the petitioner has failed to establish that he or his forefathers hail from the said area and migrated to the present place of their residence, from the said specified scheduled area,
(b) that there are non-tribal communities like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., and the petitioner has failed to satisfy crucial affinity test to establish that he belongs to 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry at Serial No.18 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 5 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950,
(c) that in the year 1967, 'Mana' community was included in the list of Other Backward Classes at Serial No.268 and later on in the list of Special Backward Classes at Serial No.2 in relation to the State of Maharashtra, and
(d) that the documents produced simply indicate the caste as 'Mana' and not 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
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 the aforesaid reasoning and we point out below what we have held in the said decision :
5. In para 5 of the decision in Gajanan's case, we have held that the Committee was wrong in holding that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes Order in relation to the State of Maharashtra for the first time in the year 1960. We have also held that in fact, the said community was included in the said Order in the year 1956.
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 :::
6 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt
6. On the aspect of original place of residence and migration, we have held in para 7 of the said decision as under :
"7. ... The Act No.108 of 1976 was published in the gazette on 29-9-1976, and the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra for all the tribes, including 'Mana' tribe, was deleted. The members of different tribes or communities in the State of Maharashtra included in Entry No.18, are treated and conferred with the status of recognized Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their place of residence in the State. The net result of such deletion was that the two-fold requirements of ordinary place of residence in tribal areas and migration to non-tribal areas, was done away with."
7. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered in Civil Appeal No.2336 of 2011 on 8-3-2017, we have held in Gajanan's case that the petitioner was not required to establish that either his forefathers were the ordinary residents of the place meant for the tribals in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order prevailing prior to 1976 or that his forefathers migrated from the said area to the present place of residence. We have also held that the Committee was in error in taking such a view.
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 :::
7 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt
8. On the other aspect that there are non-tribal communities like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., we have considered the impact of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1, which overruled earlier decision in the case of Dina v. Narayansing, reported in 38 ELR 212. We have held in para 11 of the decision in Gajanan's case 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."
In para 12 of the said decision, we have held as under :
"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 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 8 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt 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."
In view of the Constitution Bench decision in Milind's case, we hold that it is not permissible to invoke the affinity test to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized Scheduled Tribe.
9. On the aspect of inclusion of 'Mana' communities in the lists of Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes, we have relied upon the decision of this Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, 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 v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98. We have held in paras 13 and 14 of Gajanan's case 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 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 9 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt 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 '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."
The Apex Court has held that 'Mana' is a separate Scheduled Tribe in Entry No.18 and it is not a sub-tribe of 'Gond'. The Division Bench of ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 10 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt this Court 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 benefit of Scheduled Tribes Order. In para 15 of Gajanan's case, we have held that the Committee was clearly in error in holding that 'Mana' community 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'.
10. On the aspect of carving out a distinction that the documents of pre-Independence, produced on record, simply indicating the caste as 'Mana' and not 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', we have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2004(9) SCALE 316. We have held in para 18 of Gajanan's case 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 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 11 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt 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 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 after following the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah's case that 'Mana' community throughout the State is a class as a whole and to artificially explain or sub-divide it to exclude different groups like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for denying benefits of recognized Scheduled Tribe is ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 12 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt not only without any authority but violative of Articles 14 and 342 of the Constitution of India. We have held that the Committee was in error in rejecting the claim by holding that the documents produced simply indicate the caste 'Mana' and not 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
11. 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. 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 of caste or tribe, the distinction between the caste and the tribe is ignored.
12. On the aspect of primacy of documents over the affinity test, we have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, and applied the broad parameters ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 13 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt laid down therein. We have held that in view of the said decision of the Apex Court that 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. In view of the aforesaid position of law and the finding of the said committee that caste of the petitioners and their forefathers is consistently recorded as 'Mana' in their school and revenue records during the period from 1944 to 2006, the committee, in our view, was in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for 'Mana', Shceduled Tribe. All the documents produced by the petitioners indicate the caste 'Mana' and therefore the committee ought to have validated the claim.
14. So far as the entry 'Hindu (Mana)' is concerned, it is neither the finding of the scrutiny committee nor it is the fact that any separate caste or tribe or sub-caste or tribe as 'Hindu (Mana)' exists in the State of Maharashtra. Said caste 'Hindu (Mana)' is also not shown in the list of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State of Maharashtra for grant of benefits. The prefix 'Hindu" to (Mana) indicate the religion and it obviously insignificant and is the result of lack of knowledge while ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 14 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt writing entry. In our view, therefore, the committee was in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The order of the committee cannot therefore be sustained and the petitioners are entitled to grant of declaration and issuance of validity certificates.
15. In the result, writ petitions are allowed as under :-
(a) The orders dated 17-4-2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, Division Nagpur invalidating the caste claim of the petitioners for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe are hereby quashed and set aside.
(b) It is declared that the caste certificates dated 12-6-2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur in the name of the petitioners certifying that they belong to 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe which is at serial no.
18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is held to be valid.
(c) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, Division Nagpur is, therefore, directed to accordingly, issue caste validity certificates to the petitioners ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 ::: 15 jg.wp.4010 & 4044.13.odt separately validating their claim for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe category within a period of four weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment before it.
(d) The respondent nos. 2, 3 and 7 are directed to release all the documents and monetary benefits to the petitioners as a candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and if any amount is recovered or deposited by the petitioners for release of such documents, the same be refunded to the petitioners.
16. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:26 :::