Bombay High Court
Archana D/O Shamraoji Dandekar (Sau. ... vs Vice-Chairman/Member Sec., Scheduled ... on 30 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:9806-DB
1 wp7558.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7558 OF 2018
Archana d/o Shamraoji Dandekar
(Sau. Archana w/o Suresh Ghodmare),
Age about 35 years, Occ. - Service,
R/o Teachers Colony, Near Sunil
Patwari House, At Post-Chandur Rly.,
District Amravati. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Irwin Chowk,
Amravati.
2) The Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer.
3) The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4) The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Rly.,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Ms. Preeti D. Rane, Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for the respondent/State,
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12-8-2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 30-8-2024
2 wp7558.18.odt
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge raised to the order dated 26-07-2018 passed
by respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati (for short, "the Committee"), whereby the claim
of the petitioner that she belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was
rejected.
3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 29-12-2005, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Chandur Railway, issued a Caste Certificate in her favour.
4. The petitioner was appointed to the Shikshan Sevak post
on 13-06-2006 against the reserved category for the Scheduled Tribes.
After three years of probation, she was discontinued for want of a
Validity Certificate. Therefore, she approached this Court in Writ
Petition No. 2987/2010. This Court, by order dated 28-10-2010,
directed the respondent Committee to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks and shall communicate the
decision to the parties. Also, the petitioner's services were protected
3 wp7558.18.odt
during the pendency of the Committee's decision. The petitioner,
through the Education Officer, had submitted her Caste Certificate and
documents before the Committee for verification.
5. After considering the documents, the Committee was
dissatisfied with the petitioner's claim. Therefore, the Committee
forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry under
Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, " the Act"). After
a thorough enquiry, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the
Committee on 21-12-2010. During the vigilance cell enquiry, the
Committee discovered three documents from 1913, 1914 and 1949
pertaining to the petitioner's great-grandfather, cousin-great-
grandfather, and cousin-grandfather, wherein their caste was recorded
as "Mana Kunbi". Those documents are of the pre-constitutional era.
Likewise, one more document of the year 1955 pertains to the uncle of
the petitioner, wherein his caste is recorded as "Mana Kunbi". Therefore,
the petitioner was called upon to explain the said adverse entries. The
petitioner responded to the same by filing explanations dated
04-01-2011 and 25-01-2011. In the explanations, she categorically
4 wp7558.18.odt
contended that she had no concerns with the entries for 1913 and
1914. Thus, she disputed the said entries. After that, again, on
18-04-2018, she filed additional submissions regarding her caste claim.
6. Considering the vigilance cell report, explanations,
additional submissions of the petitioner, and the documents on record,
the Committee has invalidated the petitioner's caste claim, holding that
the petitioner failed to prove that she belongs to the ' Mana' Scheduled
Tribe. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
7. As against respondent No.1-Committee has resisted the
claim of the petitioner on the ground that during vigilance cell enquiry,
the vigilance cell found four documents from the years 1913 to 1938
pertain to great-grandfather Shiva, cousin great-grandfather, cousin
grandfather of the petitioner wherein their caste was recorded as
"Mana Kunbi" and "Mani". The documents of the years 1913 and 1914
are the oldest ones. Therefore, those documents have more probative
value. Thus, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she belongs
to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. As such, it is urged that the petition be
dismissed.
5 wp7558.18.odt
8. Ms. Preeti Rane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has
strenuously argued the matter at length. In addition to the argument,
she filed written notes of arguments and the judgments that were
relied on in support of her submissions. She mainly emphasises that the
petitioner has no concern with the persons whose documents from
1913 and 1914 have been discovered by the Vigilance Cell. Therefore,
those documents cannot be taken into consideration. As against, the
petitioner has produced the document dated 24-08-1919, which
pertains to his great-grandfather Shiva. The said document is from the
pre-constitutional era and has great probative value. In the said
document, his great-grandfather's caste was recorded as "Mana". As
such, the petitioner has discharged the burden cast on her to prove her
caste as 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
9. She has drawn our attention to the family tree and the
entries in the vigilance cell report. As such, she alternatively argues
that the entry of the year 1913 pertains to one Bhiva, who was not
concerned with the petitioner's family. The entry of 1914 does not
pertain to the petitioner's family and, therefore, denied those entries.
10. She further canvassed that Shiva had two sons, Mahadeo
and Bajirao. Mahadeo was the petitioner's real grandfather, and Bajirao
was the petitioner's cousin's grandfather. So, even if assumed that the
6 wp7558.18.odt
entry of the year 1914 pertains to cousin grandfather Bajirao and the
entry of the year 1919 pertains to his real grandfather Mahadeo, in that
eventuality also, the entry relating to the real grandfather Mahadeo has
to be taken into consideration than the cousin grandfather Bajirao.
Therefore, she has submitted that the said entry pertains to her cousin
grandfather, which could not be helpful to the Committee in discarding
the petitioner's claim.
11. She has further contended that Mahadeo was born to
Shiva on 24-08-2019, and since the said document is the oldest and
pre-constitutional era document, it has a more probative value. The
said entry denotes a first-degree relationship with the petitioner's
family, and being the real grandfather, the caste of the great-
grandfather should apply to the claim of the petitioner and entry of the
year 1914 procured by the Vigilance Cell depicts that one son was born
to Shiva Mana. Therefore, she urged that the petitioner discharged the
burden cast on her under Section 8 of the Act as her father's and real
grandfather's documents have much more weightage than her cousins'
documents. Therefore, she propounded that the documents pertaining
to her real grandfather of 1919 have much weightage compared to the
document of 1914. As such, the document of 1914 could not be taken
into consideration while dealing with the petitioner's claim.
7 wp7558.18.odt
12. To buttress her submissions, she has relied upon the
following authorities in the matters of :-
(a) Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995
SC 94, particularly paragraph No.10;
(b) Mr. Nilesh s/o Rangrao Narnaware and another v. Vice
Chairman and Member Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others in
Writ Petition No.5758/2022 decided on 18-1-2024,
particularly paragraph Nos.7,11 and 13;
(c) Mr. Khushraj s/o Maroti Dandekar v. Deputy Director and
Member Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal and others in Writ Petition
No.2828/2024 decided on 18-6-2024, particularly
paragraph Nos.7,13,15,25 and 28;
(d) Mr. Vardesh s/o Pratap Bagde vs. Vice Chairman &
Member Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati, and others in Writ Petition
No.3044/2022 decided on 11-1-2024, particularly
paragraph No.12, and
(e) Priya Pramod Gajbe v. The State of Maharashtra and
others, 2023 (10) Scale 426, particularly paragraph No.10.
13. Lastly, she invited our attention to the provisions of the Act
and Rules, viz. Section 8 of the Act, the definition of " relative" under
Rule 2(f), Rule 3, Rule 3(3), and Rule 4 and thereby she tried to
canvass that 'relative' means 'blood relatives', i.e. real grandfather.
Thus, the petitioner has discharged the burden cast on her under
Section 8 of the Act. However, the Committee has not considered the
said document and the provisions of law and rules and erred in
8 wp7558.18.odt
rejecting the petitioner's claim. Hence, she urged for allowing the
petition.
14. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rao learned Assistant Government
Pleader, has vehemently contended that during the vigilance cell
enquiry, the Committee noticed four adverse entries pertaining to her
great-grandfather, cousin great-grandfather from 1913 to 1938,
wherein their caste was recorded as " Mana Kunbi" and "Mane". Those
documents are from the pre-constitutional era and have more probative
value. He further argued that the document of 1919 on which the
petitioner is relying is subsequent to those of 1913 and 1914. The
petitioner claims that the entry dated 24-08-2019 pertains to his real
grandfather, Mahadeo, which denotes that one son was born to Shiva.
The petitioner asserts that said boy was no one else than Mahadeo.
However, the petitioner has not produced any authentic document
supporting her submission that the said entry pertains to her real
grandfather, Mahadeo. The family tree reflects that Shiva had two sons:
Mahadeo and Bajirao. Mahadeo is the petitioner's grandfather, and
Bajirao is the petitioner's cousin's grandfather. The petitioner does not
dispute the said fact. Therefore, even assuming that the entry to the
year 1914 relates to the cousin's grandfather, in that case also, it cannot
be said that the petitioner discharged her burden as contemplated
under Section 8 of the Act.
9 wp7558.18.odt
15. He has further submitted that earlier in the year 2006, the
petitioner's sister Neeta applied for a grant of validity certificate to the
Committee. At that time, documents from 1913 and 1914 were also
discovered by the Vigilance Cell, and an explanation of Neeta was
called upon. The father of the petitioner, namely Shamrao, appeared
before the Committee and filed an explanation to the said show cause
notice on 22-03-2007 wherein he admitted: "that entries of the years
1913, 1914, 1919 and 1937 pertain to his ancestors, and they are his
blood relatives." Therefore, he contended that the petitioner failed to
discharge the burden cast on her that she belongs to the ' Mana'
Scheduled Tribe. Lastly, he submitted that the facts in the authorities on
which the petitioner is relying are different from the case in hand and,
therefore, the dictum laid down in the said authorities is of hardly any
assistance to the petitioner in support of her claim. Hence, he urged for
the dismissal of the petition.
16. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at
length and appreciated their submissions. We have gone through the
record and written notes of arguments and judgments relied on by the
petitioner in support of her claim.
10 wp7558.18.odt
17. At the outset, it appears that the petitioner, in support of
her claim, has produced fourteen documents, out of which one
document dated 24-08-2019 pertains to her great-grandfather Shiva.
The said entry indicates a son born to Shiva; therefore, the petitioner
relied on the said entry to support her claim. However, the Vigilance
Cell, during the enquiry, discovered four documents from the years
1913 to 1938, contending that said documents of the cousin's great-
grandfather, great-grandfather and cousin-grandfather. All these five
entries, as well as the entry of the year 1919 and three additional
entries, are obtained from the Birth and Death Register. The said
entries are as follows:-
(i) The first entry, dated 09-01-1913, denotes that one son was
born to Bhiva, "Mana Kunbi."
(ii) The second entry, dated 04-07-1914, shows that one son was
born to Shiva "Mana Kunbi."
(iii) The third entry, dated 24-08-2019, depicts that one more son
was born to Shiva "Mana."
(iv) The fourth entry, dated 21-02-1937, indicates that one son
(Vitthal) was born to Baja s/o Shiva, "Mane", and
(v) Last fifth entry, dated 27-10-1938, pertains to the death of
Vitthal s/o Baja "Mane Kunabi," and his age was shown as 1 ½
years.
11 wp7558.18.odt
Three additional entries were found, those are as follows:-
(vi) The Sixth entry, dated 04-08-1942, shows the death of Shanti
d/o Mahadeo "Mani Kunbi."
(vii) The seventh entry, dated 16-08-1947, pertains to the death of
Mahadeo s/o Shiva "Mani".
(viii) The Eighth entry, dated 28-09-1949, shows that one son was
born to Bajya S/o Shiva "Mani Ku."
18. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's father, Shamrao,
has given a family tree in which he discloses that Mahadeo is his father,
Bajirao is his uncle, and Bajirao has two sons.
19. It further appears from the record that in 2006, the sister
of the petitioner, Neeta, had applied for a grant of Validity Certificate.
At that time, on 31-07-2006, the Vigilance Cell, after conducting the
enquiry, had submitted its report to the Committee. The then
Committee vide show cause notice dated 24-02-2007 called upon her
explanation. The father of Neeta and the petitioner-Archana, namely
Shamrao, had filed an explanation to the said notice, " wherein he
categorically asserted that entries of the years 1913, 1914, 1919 and 1937
are of his ancestors and blood relatives." It is to be noted that he had neither
disputed those documents nor denied his relationship with the persons
mentioned in those documents. The first time he filed his explanation
12 wp7558.18.odt
was on 22-03-2007, whereby he admitted that those documents pertain
to his ancestors. While replying, to counter the entries of the years
1913 and 1914, wherein the caste of his ancestors was recorded as
"Mana Kunbi," for the first time, he explained that their occupation was
agriculture/agricultural labourer. Hence, 'kunbi' is suffixed with 'Mana',
and, as such, the entry denotes 'Mana Kunbi' in their caste. But he has
neither disputed nor denied those entries. That being so, there is no
reason to discard the said documents.
20. Subsequently, by filing explanations in the case of the
petitioner on 04-01-2011 and 25-01-2011 and additional submissions
dated 02-04-2018 and 18-04-2018, the petitioner tried to dispute the
entries of the years 1913 and 1914, contending that she has no concern
with those entries and the person mentioned therein. She further stated
that the entry of the year 1913 pertains to Bhiva, with whom she has no
concerns. However, the entries for the years 1914, 1937, and 1938
have not been categorically denied or disputed but tried to claim that
said entries do not pertain to her blood relatives or that she has no
concern with the said entries. Alternatively, it was argued by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that assuming the entry of the year
1914 pertains to his blood relative, in that case, also said entry relates
to his cousin's grandfather and not the real grandfather. Therefore,
13 wp7558.18.odt
no importance can be given to the said entry. She emphasises that
Mahadeo was the real grandfather of the petitioner, and the document
of the year 1919 shows that Mahadeo was born to Shiva, wherein his
caste was recorded as 'Mana' has to be taken into consideration instead
of the entry of her cousin-grandfather. However, no document has been
produced by the petitioner on record to demonstrate that in 1914 or
1919, which son was born to Shiva, whether Mahadeo or Bajirao?
Besides, it is not the case of the petitioner that Mahadeo was the
younger son of Shiva. But merely based on the entry recorded in the
Aadhar Card, the learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the
entry of the year 1919 pertains to the petitioner's grandfather. Having
considered the documentary evidence and the explanation given by
Shamrao in the case of Neeta before the Committee, we do not find
substance in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
in that regard.
21. Thus, in the light of the explanation dated 22-3-2007
submitted by the father of the petitioner to the show cause notice dated
24-02-2007 in clear terms it reveals that the father of the petitioner,
Shamrao, has not disputed his relationship with Shiva, Bhiva and
Vitthal (Bajirao). He has admitted that they were his ancestors and
blood relatives. He has neither disputed nor denied the said document
14 wp7558.18.odt
at the first instance when he got an opportunity to explain. Besides,
the petitioner is not disputing her relationship with said persons i.e. her
great-grandfather. She has disclosed the names of said persons in the
family tree. On careful perusal, the entry dated 04-07-1914, same
indicates that a son was born to Shiva, " Mana Kunbi." Name or details
of such son is not mentioned therein viz. whether it was 'Mahadev' or
'Bajirao'. Neither the petitioner nor her father denied their relationship
with Shiva. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the said entry or
evidence as it cannot be said that the petitioner has no concern or rein
with the person mentioned therein. On the contrary, the record denotes
that the said entry is relevant while considering the petitioner's claim.
However, the petitioner failed to explain the said adverse entry rather
vaguely denied the same. In such an eventuality, considering the
explanation of the father of the petitioner tendered on dated
22-03-2007, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to explain
the said adverse entry. Hence, the petitioner has failed to discharge the
burden cast on her as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act.
22. The petitioner has relied on the observations made in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (cited supra) and canvassed that
the oldest entry relating to her great-grandfather, i.e. of the year 1919,
carries a greater probative value than the other documents. However,
15 wp7558.18.odt
as discussed above, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
entry of the year 1919 is the oldest one; on the contrary, evidence on
record depicts that the entries of the year 1914 are the oldest one,
which denotes that the petitioner's ancestors belonged to " Mana Kunbi."
Hence, the observations made in the judgment above are hardly of any
assistance to the petitioner, but they support the finding of the
Committee.
23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn support
from the judgment in the case of Nilesh s/o Rangrao Narnaware (cited
supra), particularly paragraphs Nos.7, 11 and 13 and tried to canvass
that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said
judgment, the pre-constitutional era documents "Mana" has more
probative value. In the said case, the facts were that one " Mani" entry
was recorded before entry "Mana", and on the said ground, the
Committee rejected the petitioner's claim in the said case. However,
the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Priya Pramod Gajbe, has clarified
that there is no caste name as "Mani" and, therefore, "Mani" has to be
read as "Mana" and in view of the said observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, this Court has set aside the order of the Committee and
granted the Validity in his favour.
24. In the case in hand, the documents on record show that
16 wp7558.18.odt
during the vigilance cell enquiry, " Mana Kunbi" entry was found by the
vigilance cell and, therefore, the observations in the said judgment are
not helpful to the petitioner in support of her claim.
25. Learned counsel has drawn support from observations
made in paragraph Nos. 7,13,15,25 and 28 of the judgment in W. P.
No.2828 of 2024, as well as paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed
in W. P. No.3044 of 2022, and tried to emphasize that in both the
decisions, this Court, while dealing with the entry " Mana Kunbi" has
observed that the said entry might have been wrongly inserted or
incorrectly written and, therefore, she submitted that said observations
are applicable in the case in hand. It is pertinent to note that this
Court, in Writ Petition No.2828 of 2024, rejected the claim of the
petitioner that the petitioner therein belongs to the " Mana" Scheduled
Tribe, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden as
contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No.3044 of 2022 produced the pre-independence era documents of
1913 and 1917 to support his claim, wherein his caste was recorded as
"Mana". In the said case, some entries subsequent to these entries were
found adverse to "Mana" entries as 'Mana Kunbi.' Therefore, as per the
settled legal position, this Court has given the greatest probative value
to the old documents of 1913 and 1917 instead of the subsequent entry
17 wp7558.18.odt
of 'Mana Kunbi'. Therefore, the observations made in both the
judgments referred to above are not helpful to the petitioner to
substantiate her claim.
26. Ms. Rane has further invited our attention to the case of
Priya Pramod Gajbe (cited supra) and submitted that in view of the
observations in paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, the entry " Mana
Kunbi" be read as "Mana" Schedule Tribe. It is pertinent to note that
the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad
and others v. Dy. Director & Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others reported in AIR Online
2023 BOM 1849, after considering the judgment in the case of Priya
Pramod Gajbe, has held that "Mane Kunbi', "Mani/Mane" and "Mani Ku."
cannot be held to be included in the ' Mana' Scheduled Tribe, in Entry
No.18 in the Presidential (ST) Order 1950 and, thus cannot claim the
status of a Schedule Tribe. Consequently, we do not find substance in
the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in that
regard.
27. Thus, having considered the discussion above, it is evident
that during the vigilance cell enquiry, the Vigilance Cell discovered the
documents of the years 1913 and 1914 wherein the caste of the
ancestors of the petitioner is recorded as " Mana Kunbi". The petitioner
18 wp7558.18.odt
failed to explain the said adverse entries. Per contra, while submitting
the explanation on 22-03-2007, the petitioner's father has not disputed
the adverse entries or his relationship with them but tried to explain
that 'Kunbi' was their occupation and, therefore, the same is suffixed
with their caste. However, in view of the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad (cited
supra), 'Mana Kunbi' cannot be said to be included in ' Mana' Scheduled
Tribe in entry No.18 of the Presidential Order. Likewise, as per the
settled legal position, the Schedule Tribe "Mana" in Entry 18 must be
read as it is, i.e., 'Mana' only. In such an eventuality, from the available
documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
discharged her burden as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act,
thereby proving that she belongs to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
28. Moreover, as per the explanation of the petitioner's father
vide explanation dated 22-03-2007, there is no reason to disbelieve the
entries in documents of the years 1913 and 1914. Furthermore,
assuming the claim of the petitioner that entry of the year 1919
pertains to her grandfather, i.e. son born to Shiva, however, she has not
produced any cogent evidence on record in support of her claim. On
the contrary, she has not disputed her relationship with great-
grandfather Shiva. Therefore, the entry of the year 1914, which was
19 wp7558.18.odt
recorded in the Birth and Death Register, depicts only that one son was
born to Shiva "Mana Kunbi" and has no reason to disbelieve even
assuming that said entry pertains to the cousin grandfather of the
petitioner.
29. In this background, in our opinion, the dictum laid down
in the afore-cited judgments is hardly of any assistance to the petitioner
in support of her claim. Per contra, the observations made in the said
judgments are against the petitioner's claim and support the finding
given by the Committee.
30. In the backdrop above, in our view, the petitioner has
failed to discharge the burden that lies on her as contemplated under
Section 8 of the Act and failed to demonstrate that she belongs to the
'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the Committee, in our opinion, is
justified in recording a finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
that she belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
31. As such, there is no substance in the petition, and it is
bereft of merit. Hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
20 wp7558.18.odt
The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for
continuation of the interim order for a further period of six weeks.
Having considered the facts of the matter, we deem it
appropriate to continue the interim order for a further period of four
weeks from today.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/08/2024 16:04:43
