Bombay High Court
Shubham S/O Diwakar Dhok Thr. ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 11 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp3643.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3643 OF 2013
Shubham Diwakar Dhok,
aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,
through Natural Guardian father,
Diwakar s/o Maroti Dhok, aged 48 years,
Occ. Service, R/o. Kokewada (Tukum),
Tah. Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur....... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, Division Nagpur,
through its Chairman, Office at Complex
Area, Near Zilla Parishad Sankul,
Gadchiroli, Tq. & Distt. Gadchiroli.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32...
3. The Director,
Technical Education, Maharashtra
State, Mumbai, 3, Mahapalika Marg,
Post Box No. 1967, Mumbai.
4. The Principal,
D.Y.Patil College of Engineering
& Technology, Kasba Bawada,
Kolhapur.
5. The Registrar, Shivaji University,
Kolhapur, Tah. Karveer, Distt.
Kolhapur .. RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.P. Dhok, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.K.Pathan, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
None for respondent Nos. 4 and 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2017 01:50:06 :::
2 wp3643.13.odt
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
th
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 29 NOVEMBER, 2017 .
th
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 11 DECEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J.)
1] The claim of the petitioner for grant of validity
certificate as a person belonging to Mana - Scheduled Tribe,
which is an entry at Sr. No.18 in the Constitution Scheduled
Tribe Order, 1950, has been rejected by the Scrutiny
Committee at Gadchiroli by its order dated 11.06.2013 and
cancelled and confiscated the Caste Certificate, dated
02.06.2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Warora,
Distt. Chandra, which is the subject matter of challenge in
this petition.
2] Before the Committee, the petitioner has
produced 11 documents, all containing the entry of caste
"Mana". The oldest document is of the revenue record of
1918-19 in the name of Patosa s/o Paiku Mana, which is
rejected by the Committee on the ground that the petitioner
has failed to establish his relation. The another document is
the school leaving certificate of 11.07.1950 in the name of
Maroti Shivram Dhok, grandfather of the petitioner, showing
3 wp3643.13.odt
the entry of caste "Mana". The another document is the
school leaving certificate of 16.07.1975 in the name of
Diwakar Dhok, father of the petitioner, containing the entry of
caste "Mana". The next document is the sale-deed dated
27.03.1978 in the name of Shivram Shrawan Dhok, great
grandfather of the petitioner. The Police Vigilance Cell
conducted home enquiry and found one more document of
revenue entry of the year 1918-19 in the name of Dago s/o
Ghumya, showing his caste as Mana, but it is rejected by the
said Committee on the ground that the relation of the
petitioner with the said person is not established.
3] The petitioner accepts that the person Dago s/o
Ghumya in whose name revenue entry of 1918-19 stands,
showing his case as "Mana", is not related to him, but it is in
respect of the sale deed under which his great grandfather
Shivram purchased the property from Dago s/o Ghumya.
The Committee records the finding in paragraph 14 of its
order that the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers is
consistently recorded as 'Mana' in their school and revenue
records during the period 1950-2007, but rejects the claim by
applying affinity test recording the reasons as under;
4 wp3643.13.odt
" (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 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
5 wp3643.13.odt
1960. We have also held that in fact, the said community was
included in the said Order in the year 1956.
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.
8] On the other aspect that there are non-tribal
6 wp3643.13.odt
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 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
7 wp3643.13.odt
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 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
8 wp3643.13.odt
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 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
9 wp3643.13.odt
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 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 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
10 wp3643.13.odt
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 not 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 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 finding of the said Committee that
the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers is consistently
11 wp3643.13.odt
recorded as "Mana" in the school and revenue record during
the period from 1950 to 2007 and the fact that the sale deed
in the name of Shivram, the great grandfather of the
petitioner shows the caste as "Mana", the Committee could
not have rejected the claim by applying affinity test. The
documents have probative value have to be given primacy
over the affinity test. The Committee has, therefore,
committed an error in applying the affinity test to reject the
claim.
14] The father of the petitioner was issued a validity
certificate dated 28.08.2008 validating his caste claim for
"Mana - Scheduled Tribe". The Committee rejects the said
claim holding that the said certificate was not issued by
following the procedure of conducting vigilance cell enquiry
under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Certificate
Rules, 2003. It is the discretion of the Committee to call for
the report from the Police Vigilance Cell after making enquiry.
If the Committee did not think it necessary while granting
validity certificate to the father of the petitioner to conduct
Police Vigilance Cell enquiry, then it is not open now for the
12 wp3643.13.odt
Committee to reject the said certificate on the ground that no
enquiry was conducted. In view of the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay
Nichale vrs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the Committee ought
to have held that the petitioner was entitled to issue caste
validity certificate and no different view could have been
taken, resulting in enormous situation that the father of the
petitioner belongs to Mana-Scheduled Tribe, whereas the
petitioner does not .
15] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, invalidating the caste claim
of the petitioner for Mana - Scheduled Tribe category is
hereby quashed as set aside and the following order is
passed.
(i) The Caste Certificate dated 02.06.2012
produced by the petitioner is held to be valid, certifying that
he belongs to Mana - Scheduled Tribe Category, which is an
entry at Sr.No. 18 of the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order.
13 wp3643.13.odt
(ii) The Committee is directed to issue validity
certificate accordingly in the name of the petitioner within a
period of one month from the date of production of the order
of this Court before the Committee.
(iii) Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 shall issue all the
documents to the petitioner in relation to his admission and
the result, if any, without insisting upon for payment of fees
as a candidate belonging to 'open category' within the period
of two weeks from the date of production of this order without
waiting for the certificate of validity from the Scrutiny
Committee.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
