Mayur Gajanan Dadmal, Through His ... vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16841 Bom

                                                                                              WP.6216.19.J
                                                       1


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                       ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 6216/2019

* Mayur Gajanan Dadmal Aged minor, Through his mother Mrs. Gaurabai w/o Gajanan Dadmal Aged about 39 years, occu: Household R/o Plot No. 59, Hudkeshwar (Bk) Pipla, Nagpur-34. ..PETITIONER

versus

1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nagpur :Through its Vice-president and Member-Secretary Office at Giripeth, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur.

2)       K.D.K. Nagpur Polytechnic College
         Great Nag Road
         St. Jagnade Square
         Nandanwan, Nagpur
         Through its Principal

3)     Sub-Divisional Officer
       Umred,Dist. Nagpur.                                                  ..        RESPONDENTS

..................................................................................................................

Mr Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Neeraj Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 Respondent no. 2 served -

................................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 4th December, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.) WP.6216.19.J

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of respective parties.

2. Here is a case wherein the pre-Constitutional entries in

relation to paternal ancestors of the petitioner showing them as "Mana"

are not in dispute. Entries are of the date 10.04.1942 and also of the

years 1912 to 1917. These entries, having a greater probative value

and require their acceptance, especially when the vigilance enquiry

casts no doubt upon their genuineness. This is also the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Anand vs. Committee for

Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in 2011(6) ALL MR

919 (SC). It appears that this settled position of law has been ignored

by the Respondent no.1-Committee and the doubt which was not there

in respect of the pre-Constititional entries was created simply by

making a reference to 1966 entry in the name of Matu Ramaji Dadmal,

paternal aunt of the petitioner showing her social status to be of 'Mani'.

Since this was a post-Constitutional entry, not much reliance could have

been placed upon it by the respondent no.1- Committee, keeping aside

the settled position of law as explained earlier. Even otherwise, in the

case of Gitesh Ghormare vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, reported in 2018(5) ALL MR 780, a coordinate Bench of

this Court has referred to Anthropological Survey of India, styled as WP.6216.19.J

'People of India' (Maharashtra),Volume XXX, Part Two', to propound

that the caste 'Mana' is also known as 'Mane' or 'Mani'. The Bench has

also referred to the Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985 which

highlights the fact that "Mana" is known as "Mane" and "Mani".

3. By referring to such reliable material, the Division bench

concluded that it is of no significance that the community is described

as 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane' or 'Mannya'. The relevant observations

of the Bench as they appear in paragraph 18 of the judgment are

reproduced hereunder, for the sake of convenience:-

"18. In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two' , it is stated that 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. The Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985 also highlights the position that 'Mana' is known as''Mane', 'Mani'. The Committee also does not dispute such position. It is neither the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee nor the fact that any separate caste or tribe or sub-caste/tribe as 'Mane' Mani' or 'Mannya' exits in the State of Maharashtra. Such castes/tribes are also not shown in the list of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes WP.6216.19.J

maintained by the State Government. It is, therefore, of no significance that the community is described as 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane' or 'Mannya' and the entries have to be treated as that of 'Mana'. The Committee has, therefore, erred in relying upon the entries of 'Mane' and 'Mani' to reject the claim."

4. The Division Bench in the same judgment has also held

that while construing the import and effect of pre-Constitution

documents which are produced in support of tribe claim, it is important

to note that during the period which was prior to framing of the

Constitution there being no reservation provided for any tribe and

there being no community declared as Scheduled Tribe, the reference

to all these Tribes and different communities was only under the

generic category of "caste". Such being the position obtaining before

framing of the Constitution of India, the documents containing a

column of caste has to be appropriately construed.

5. In the present case, the petitioner claims to belong to

'Mana' a tribe which is included in the schedule to the Constitutional

Order, 1950 and, thus, is eligible for claiming reservation benefits. It is

not in dispute that there is no caste which goes by the nomenclature of

'Mana' and, therefore, the entries of 'Mana' taken in the pre-

WP.6216.19.J

Constitutional documents produced by the petitioner before the

respondent no.1- Committee and which are found to be genuine by the

Vigilance Officer are required to be understood only as referring to the

tribe 'Mana' which has been declared later to be a Scheduled Tribe

eligible for various social benefits.

6. We find that all these aspects have not been considered

appropriately by the respondent no.1-Committee and as a result an

erroneous order came to be passed, which cannot stand to the scrutiny

of law. The pre-Constitution documentary evidence being convincing

in nature, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have issued validity

certificate in favour of the petitioner, but unfortunately that did not

occur.

7. In the circumstances, we find that this petition deserves to

be allowed. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby

quashed and set aside. The Respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee is

directed to issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner as

belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, at the earliest. We urge the

respondent no.1-Committee to make an endeavour to issue validity

certificate by the evening of 5th December,2021 and if it is done, it

would enable the petitioner to pursue his academic goal to be an

Engineer.

WP.6216.19.J

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

              JUDGE                          JUDGE
sahare




                                                     Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
                                                     BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
                                                     Location:
                                                     Signing Date:04.12.2021 19:38