Bombay High Court
Ku. Wanshika D/O Arun Shrirame vs Joint Commissioner And Vice - Chairman, ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:11051-DB
42-wp 2047-2023-j.odt 1/15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2023
Ku. Wanshika D/o. Arun Shrirame,
Aged about 20 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o. Somwari Quarter No. 208/3,
Post - Hanuman Nagar,
Nagpur-440024. ....PETITIONER
....VERSUS....
1. Joint Commissioner & Vice-
Chairman,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2. State CET., Cell,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
3. Principal,
Priyadarshani College of Engineering
Hingna Road, Digdoh Hill,
Nagpur (M.S.)
(Amended Respondent
nos. 2 and 3 as per Court's
order dated 17.08.2023) ....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.R.Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.J.Khan, AGP for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri N.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
42-wp 2047-2023-j.odt 2/15
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 03/09/2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 03 /10/2024
JUDGMENT (PER: SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties at the stage of admission.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23/02/2023
passed by the respondent no. 1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (in short, 'Scrutiny
Committee'), thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the
petitioner for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe Category, the petitioner
has filed the present petition.
4. It is submitted that, the petitioner is a student who
passed 12th standard and is appearing in the ensuing
examination pertaining to Engineering. The petitioner
urgently requires validity certificate belonging to 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe for the educational purpose. The petitioner
had submitted the proposal along with the list of documents
on 08/03/2022 before the respondent no. 1 Scrutiny
Committee. The petitioner had submitted the oldest
document of her father and forefathers belong to 'Mana' S.T.
The petitioner had also submitted validity certificate of her
parental aunt Alka Motiram Shrirame issued by the
competent Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner had also filed
family tree showing the relationship with Alka Motiram
Shrirame as paternal aunt.
5. The respondent no. 1 Scrutiny Committee had
directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct inquiry and submit its
report. On the basis of the vigilance cell report, ignoring the
validity certificate issued to the paternal aunt Alka Motiram
Shrirame, the respondent Scrutiny Committee has invalidated
the tribe claim of the petitioner on 23/02/2023. Hence, the
present writ petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the claim of the petitioner was invalidated only on the
ground that some of the entries are found to be recorded as
'Mana Kunbi', Kunbi. The said entries are not related to the
petitioner. So far as the validity certificate of the paternal aunt
is concerned, there is no remark, though it is already reflected
in the vigilance cell report. The validity certificate issued by
the Scrutiny Committee in case of the paternal aunt of the
petitioner is good and valid. There is no element of fraud for
getting the earlier validity certificate.
7. Similarly, the document of 1913-14 is concerned, it
is submitted that such person did not exist in the family of the
petitioner. The name of the grandfather of the petitioner is
Sakharam S/o. Baguji. The original residence of the
petitioner's great grandfather is of Titur and the document
produced by the police vigilance cell regarding Mana-Kunbi
of the year 1913-14 is from Morshi.
8. So far as Madhukar Jago Shrirame is concerned, it
is contended that he is also not from the family of the
petitioner and the name is also not found in family tree. He is
not related with the petitioner. Therefore, the document of
1913-14 and document of Madhukar Jago Shrirame are of the
same nomenclature but not of the blood relatives from
paternal side. Therefore, the entries produced by the police
vigilance cell showing Mana-Kunbi & Kunbi are irrelevant
and not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
9. The petitioner had submitted the following pre-
independence document:-
Name Relation Document Date of Caste
document
Dama S/o. Cousin Great Extract of Birth 02/12/1944 Mana
Zibu gave Grandfather
birth to one
daughter
named Kausi
Motiram Grandfather Dakhal Kharij 1941 Mana
Sakharam
10. The genealogy as collected by the Vigilance Cell is
as under:-
FAMILY TREE
Sakharam (Great Grandfather)
Motiram (Grandfather) Dhondba (Grandfather)
Prashant Sarika Ajay
Ashok Dilip Arun Ravi Alka (paternal aunt
and validity holder)
Pratik Darshana Akshay Vanshika Bhumika Vedant
(Applicant)
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following authorities/citations:-
(i) Gajanan s/o. Pandurang Shende V/s. H.M.Govt.
Ashram School [2018(2) Mh.L.J.460]
(ii) Mrunali d/o. Shamrao Wakade V/s. The Vice-
Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli [Judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5171/2018 decided on
30/08/2018 with connected petitions]
(iii) Ku. Sarika d/o. Deorao Narnaware V/s. Jt.
Commisioner & Vice-Chairman, S.T.Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur [Judgment of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 4928/2019 decided on 08/12/2022]
(iv) Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee [2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401]
12. The learned Assistant Government pleader for
the respondent no. 1 - Scrutiny Committee supported the
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that
there are suspicious documents. It is contended that the
documents at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 3, which are Agricultural
documents and School records of the petitioner's Great Great
Grandfather, Cousin Grandfather and Grandfather for the
years 1913 to 14 and 1957, the caste entries are 'Mana Kunbi'
and 'Kunbi' The oldest document of petitioner's family is
contrary to her claim of 'Mana' tribe. The learned counsel for
the respondent no. 1 further submitted that the Committee
observed that the above relatives of the petitioner were found
to be recorded as 'Mana Kunbi & Kunbi in the years 1913-14
and 1957. The caste 'Mana Kunbi' and 'Kunbi' are not
included in Scheduled Tribe list, whereas 'Mana' tribe is
mentioned at Sr. No. 18. Therefore, the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee is perfectly justified, hence prayed for
dismissal of present petition.
13. The learned AGP for respondent no. 1 Scrutiny
Committee relied on the following authority/citation:-
(i) Sau. Gauri W/o. Ramesh Gedam V/s. Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and
anr. [Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
5260/2015 decided on 23/02/2016]
14. We have heard both the parties at length. Perused
the record and proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
placed on record by the learned AGP. There are two entries
which were found by the Vigilance Cell i.e. of the years 1941
and 1944. These two documents are also placed on record by
the petitioner wherein the Tribe of her grandfather and the
cousin grandfather is shown as 'Mana'. It appears that branch
of the family tree which was submitted by Alka in her
application for validity is not shown by the petitioner.
15. The Scrutiny Committee obtained two documents
of the year 1913-14 in respect of one Zibu S/o. Sivla wherein
the Tribe is shown as 'Mana-Kunbi. The petitioner in her
reply to show cause notice duly explained that there is no
person by name Sakhya S/o. Gobji Kunbi. The said entry is in
respect of a person residing at Mourshi. Similarly, in
respective entry of Zibu S/o. Sitala Mana Kunbi, R/o.
Mourshi is not also in relation with the petitioner nor he was
residing where the grandfather of the petitioner was residing
i.e. at Titur. There is no person by name Sivla in the genealogy
given by the petitioner or her maternal aunt Alka. Similarly,
Madhukar is also not from the genealogy of the petitioner. As
such, in our considered opinion, due explanation has been
given by the petitioner in relation to the person. Only because
there is some similarity in the name, either first name or
second name that by itself is not sufficient to consider these
entries, unless Scrutiny Committee is having any evidence to
co-relate or connect the said persons and entries of 'Mana
Kunbi' with the petitioner.
16. In the documents produced by the petitioner as
well as collected by the Vigilance Cell, there is a document of
the year 1941 in respect of Motiram Sakharam whose
residence is shown as Titur. However, the Scrutiny committee
discarded the same for the reason that, in the genealogy
produced by Alka, validity holder, she has shown father of
Sakharam as Zibu. However, the document produced by the
petitioner shows that the name of the father of Sakharam is
Bagu. The document of the year 02/12/1944 in respect of
Dama S/o. Zibu is also verified in vigilance of Alka. The
petitioner herein has shown family tree from Sakharam (Great
grandfather) whereas Alka, paternal aunt of the petitioner
family tree one generation above Sakharam. The document of
dated 02/12/1944 also shows caste Mana. Thereafter, also
there are documents of the years 1961 to 1980 which are
showing entries as 'Mana'. If paragraph 27 of the order of the
Scrutiny Committee is perused, the said inference has been
drawn by the Scrutiny Committee merely on the presumption
without there being any evidence to that effect. It is
mentioned that, there is revenue record of the year 1912-13
wherein Zibu S/o. Sivla Mana Kunbi is mentioned, therefore,
the Scrutiny Committee drew inference that, the original
ancestor might be Sivla Mana Kunbi. The inference is also
drawn that there was no ancestral property at Titur and the
person from the family by name Motiram Shrirame has
completed his primary education at Titur and came to
Nagpur prior to 70 to 80 years, therefore, there is possibility
that he was not having much information about his family
and this possibility cannot be ruled out. Thus the Scrutiny
Committee went ahead with assumption that Sivla Mana
Kunbi must be having two sons namely Zibu and Bagu,
which is just imagination without any basis which can not be
justified.
17. In 1912, Zibu Sivla Mana Kunbi purchased a land
in view of the revenue entry. It is further observed that
possibly Bagu has not purchased any land, therefore, there is
no entry in revenue record to that effect. This assumption of
the Scrutiny Committee without any basis is erroneous. The
Scrutiny Committee cannot on the basis of assumption,
conjectures and surmises relate to the persons which are not
belonging to the family of the petitioner. It is already made
clear that the persons whose documents Committee is relying
are residing at Morushi and noway connected with the
petitioner. It is admitted fact that the paternal aunt of the
petitioner was issued with validity certificate.
18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on Gajanan s/o. Pandurang Shende (supra) which is
also referred in Ku. Sarika d/o. Deorao Narnaware (supra),
however, the decision of Gajanan s/o. Pandurang Shende
(supra) has been overruled by the Full Bench in Maroti
Vyankati Gaikwad and ors. V/s. Dy. Director & Member
Secretary [AIR OnLine 2023 Bom. 1849].
19. There is no allegation of any fraud or
interpolation in the entries, thus it is not open for the Scrutiny
Committee to invalidate the claim in spite of the fact that
paternal aunt is already having validity certificate in her
favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Mrunali d/o. Shamrao Wakade (supra) wherein it is held by
this court as under:-
"13. In present matters, the Committee has not come
across any material which shows that caste "Mana"
has been shown either by interpolation or tampering.
The Committee has only, because of absence of
vigilance exercise, ignored validities and taken
recourse to affinity. There is a general observation
which records that in Vidarbha area, "Mana" caste
also exists and they are mostly cultivators. Their caste
is recorded as "Mana", "Mane", "Mani", "Mane
Kunbi", "Mani Kunbi" or "Kunbi". The Committee
observes that this "Mana" (so called upper caste
Mana) take advantage of similarity of name and pose
themselves as candidates belonging to "Mana"
Scheduled Tribe. However, this observation of
Committee is not supported by any evidence. The
Committee has not pointed out any case law or any
other material which holds that a caste by name
"Mana" exists independent of "Mana" Scheduled
Tribe. In absence of this material, a general
observation as mentioned supra, cannot have the effect
of ignoring validities earlier granted."
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
on Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) wherein this Court held as
under:-
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during
the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste
validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a
blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same
caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee
may grant such certificate without calling for
Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee
finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by
fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the
Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to
grant certificate to the applicant before it."
21. The learned AGP relied on Sau. Gauri W/o.
Ramesh Gedam (supra), however, it is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances in the present matter. In the said
matter, the brother and sister were granted validity
certificates but that too without conducting vigilance inquiry
whereas in the present matter, the vigilance inquiry was
conducted in respect of paternal aunt of the petitioner i.e.
Alka. In view of the judgment of Mrunali d/o. Shamrao
Wakade (supra), the area restriction is already removed in the
year 1976 and there cannot be any distinction in 'Mana' from
one area and other 'Mana' from another area, when
specifically they are recognized by the State of Maharashtra as
Scheduled Tribe in view of entry no. 18. As such the order
passed by the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be quashed and
set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 23/02/2023 passed by the
respondent no. 1 - the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in the matter of the petitioner
-Ku. Wanshika D/o. Arun Shrirame, in Case No.
lvk@vtizrl@ukx@I@640@31@2022 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
iii) It is held that the petitioner has duly established
that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe 'Mana' as included in
Entry No. 18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950.
iv) The respondent no. 1 - the Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to
issue validity certificate to the petitioner of Scheduled Tribe
'Mana' within a period of two weeks.
v) Till such time, this judgment shall be treated as a
document certifying the validity of the petitioner being
entitled to the benefits of 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe Category.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
(Judge) (Judge)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/10/2024 20:36:36
