Bombay High Court
Pranal S/O Chintaman Wagh vs Dy. Commissioner/ Member Secretary, ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:11534-DB
wp 6104-2023.odt 1/17
FIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6104/2023
Mr. Pranal S/o. Chintaman Wagh,
aged about 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. At. Post. Pandurna (Khurd),
Tah. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. ....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Deputy Commissioner /
Member Secretary, The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,
Near Rangoli Ground, Shastri
Nagar, Yavatmal, District, Yavatmal.
2. Recruitment Section, HRDM
First Floor, Reserve Bank of
India, Mumbai Regional
Office, Shahid Bhagatsingh
Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ..
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27/09/2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 15/10/2024
JUDGMENT (PER SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
4. The present petition raises question to the order
dated 19/06/2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 - the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal
(for short, 'the Scrutiny Committee'), thereby invalidating the
tribe claim of the petitioner belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled
Tribe (S.T.), which is enlisted at Sr. No. 18 of the
Constitutional (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Scheduled
Tribe certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Kelapur, District Yavatmal. Though the
petitioner in response to the advertisement for recruitment to
the post of Assistant in the establishment of respondent no. 2
i.e. R.B.I. passed the examination and was selected for the
post of Assistant reserved for S.T. category, however, his
name was not appearing in the select list published on
09/12/2022. The other selected candidates were already
joined on 23/01/2023 on their respective post. Upon enquiry,
the petitioner was advised to submit the original tribe validity
certificate. The petitioner had submitted his proposal of the
tribe claim for verification to respondent no. 1 - the Scrutiny
Committee on 07/02/2023. As he was in receipt of the
communication from the respondent no. 2 to submit the
original tribe validity certificate by 14/06/2023, he filed Writ
Petition No. 3590/2023 in this Court. As per prayer for
interim relief, this Court had directed the respondent no. 2
that, the name of the petitioner shall not be deleted from the
select list for the post of Assistant. During the pendency of
Writ Petition No. 3590/2023, the respondent no. 1 on
19/06/2023 passed its final order and thereby invalidated the
tribe claim of the petitioner.
5. The oldest document, which is submitted by the
petitioner, is in respect of Ragho, great great grandfather of
the petitioner dated 23/01/1918. It is extract of birth register
maintained by Kotwal. As per this extract, Ragho Wagh had
delivered a female child on 23/01/1918. The entry 'Mana' is
clearly reflecting in the said document. During the course of
hearing by the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner had also
placed on record three more documents. One of them is in
respect of Sadashiv Mana, which is of the year 1925, second is
in respect of Chintaman Vishwanath Wagh dated 24/08/2022
and third is in respect of Vishwanath Sadashiv Wagh dated
04/01/2018. As such, it is contended that, the old documents
ought not to have been discarded by the Scrutiny Committee,
and reliance by the Scrutiny Committee on the entry of 'Mana
Kunbi' in some documents, which are not the oldest one was
clearly not justified. The petitioner submits that, the
documents having great probative value were not considered
for no reason by the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the order
passed by the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on the
following citations:-
1) Manisha d/o Pundlik Dadmal Vs. The Vice-
Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and ors.
[Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5481/2018,
decided on 30/08/2018]
2) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
and Tribe Claims and ors. [2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919]
7. The learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent
no. 1 contended that, the petitioner had submitted some
documents, in which 'Kunbi' is mentioned, from which is
evident that, the petitioner does not belong to 'Mana' S.T. The
submission of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the
learned AGP that, whenever, a person shows his caste as
'Kunbi', it is likely that, he is only indicating the occupation
and not the caste. It is submitted that, these documents are
also having great probative value as they are of
pre-Constitutional period. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee
rightly appreciated the evidence before it and passed an
appropriate order.
8. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2
employer in reply submitted that the same practice of
submission of caste validity certificate is being uniformly
followed for all the reserved categories who are selected
against the reserved seats. As there was interim relief, the
name of the petitioner has not been deleted from the select list
for the post of Assistant (panel year 2021).
9. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the
record and proceedings produced by the learned AGP for the
Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has placed on record as
many as 30 documents. In these documents, there are two
entries of Sadashiv Mana, one is extract of birth register,
wherein it is shown that, said Sadashiv Mana gave birth to
female child and another document is of dated 26/08/1930,
which is the extract of death register showing that there is
death of one daughter of Sadashiv Mana. Out of those entries,
the following are the old entries:-
Name Relation Document Date of Caste
document
Kisan Sadashiv Cousin Ferfar 01/04/1946 Kunbi
Vishwanath Grandfather Register
Sadashiv
Kunbi
Sadashiv Vagh Great Birth Register 01/12/1920 --
gave birth to Grandfather
one son
Sadashiv Mana Great Birth Register Unclear/ Mana
gave birth to Grandfather 03/Unclear
female child
Sadashiv Great Death 26/08/1930 Mana
Mana's female Grandfather Register
child died
(Age 1 day)
Sadashiv Great Ferfar 07/01/1937 Mani
Ragho S/o. Grandfather Register Kunbi
Vitthal
Raghoba Mani
Kunbi
Vitthal Ragho Cousin Great Ferfar 10/07/1937 Mani
Mani Kunbi Grandfather Register Kunbi
Vitthal Cousin Great Ferfar 01/04/1946 Kunbi
Raghoba Grandfather Register
Kunbi
Ragho Wagh Great Great Birth 23/01/1918 Mana
Mana gave Grandfather Registrar
birth to one
female child
Sadashiv Mana Great Birth 01/08/1925 Mana
Kunbi gave Grandfather Registrar Kunbi
birth to one
son
10. The genealogy submitted by the petitioner to the
Scrutiny Committee is as under:-
FAMILY TREE
Ragho Wagh (Great Great Grandfather)
Dwarka Ragho Wagh (Mana) Sadashiv Ragho Wagh (Mana) Vitthal Ragho Wagh (Mana)
Yasudi Sadashiv Wagh Mana Kisan Sadashiv Wagh Mana Vishwanath Sadashiv Wagh Mana
Tara Vishwanath Mira Vishwanath Damodhar Vishwanath Dhyaneshwar Vishwanath Chintaman Vishwanath Anil Vishwanath
Wagh Wagh Wagh Wagh Wagh Wagh
Chetan Roshni Rahul Praful Pranal Kunal
Damodhar Wagh Damodhar Wagh Dhyaneshwar Wagh Dhyaneshwar Wagh Chintaman Wagh Chintaman Wagh
(Applicant)
Vanshika Ankita
Anil Wagh Anil Wagh
11. From these documents, it can be seen that the
oldest entry is of dated 23/01/1918 showing female child
born to Ragho Wagh Mana. There are subsequent entries of
'Mana' in respect of Sadashiv Mana of the years 1930 and
1937 whereas said Sadashiv Mana is shown in the year 1937
as 'Mani Kunbi'. Even Vigilance Cell has obtained the
document prior to 1950 wherein Sadashiv Mana is shown as
Mana Kunbi, Kunbi Mana, Mani Kunbi. In these documents,
the oldest document is of the year 1918, which shows the
entry of 'Mana', whereas the document of the year 1938 is in
respect of said Sadashiv whose caste is shown as 'Mani
Kunbi'. There is no dispute over the genealogy. As such,
though Sadashiv is shown as 'Mana' in the document of 1930,
he is also shown as 'Mana Kunbi in 1925 and 'Mani Kunbi' in
1937, which clearly can be attributed to an error in the
recording of the tribe.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment in the case of Mansi Pundlik Dadmal (supra),
wherein this Court observed in para 9, 10 and 11 as under:-
"9. The relevant portion appearing in sub-paragraph
(B) in impugned order of Scrutiny Committee contains a
chart and it reproduces certain facts or figures with
reference to Government Gazette. The oldest gazette
mentioned there is of year 1869-1870. Paragraph or part
136 is reproduced in last column. This portion reads as
under:-
136. Koonbees from the Largest, the most important,
and the sturdiest portion of the Hindoo land
cultivator community so much so that Koonbee has
come to the synonymous with agriculturist and it is
no uncommon thing to hear farmer of Brahmin or
other caste describe himself as a "Koonbee Manna".
Perusal of this portion, therefore, shows that Koonbee had
become synonymous then with agriculturist and even
farmers of Brahmin or other castes describe themselves as
'Koonbee Manna'. Other part of said chart then refers to
Anthropometric Measurements of Maharashtra by
authors like Irawati Karwe and Vishnu Mahadeo
Dandekar. Little later in this chart against serial no. 3
while extracting some portion from Gazetteer of India
Maharashtra State -Nagpur District (Revised Edition)
(First Edition 1908 and Second Edition (Revised 1966)
under the heading "People of Hindu Caste mentioned as
Mana agriculturist", it is recorded that (I) Manes and
Dhanojes are the lowest sub-divisions (ii) Manes appear
to be Manas who have become Kunbis. These portions
relied upon by Committee, therefore, show that the
Committee itself has found that Manas who have become
Kunbis were recognized as Manes.
10. Though there is no other material to support these
recitals in Government Gazette, the position prevailing
prior to 1869-1870 or in 1908, therefore, shows that then
people from other castes/tribes were presenting themselves
as 'Kunbi Manas'. If Manes are original Manas, we failed
to understand as to how finding of document recording
caste as 'Mane' can itself be fatal to the caste claim.
11. There is, therefore, no cogent material available
before this Court in the present matter to hold that any
caste by name, 'Mana Kunbi', 'Mana Khand', 'Kunbi'
independently existed. However, looking to references in
old documents, we leave that question open for further
consideration in more appropriate matter. In the present
case, Committee could not get any material to show that
petitioner does not belong to 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
placed reliance on Anand V/s. Commottee for S.V. (supra) in
support of his contention that, the affinity test cannot be
applied if the old documents are on record. It is his contention
that the petitioner's claim cannot be negatived on the ground
that he did not possess the basic characteristic, knowledge of
customs and culture of the said tribe. In the said case, the
Hon'ble Apex Court laid down some broad parameters,
which could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim,
which read as under:-
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater
reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents
because they furnish a higher degree of probative value
to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to
post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is
the first generation ever to attend school, the availability
of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that
ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In
fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to
attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the
applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event
of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity
has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which
an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the
ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a
cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago,
when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural
development happening around them, the affinity test
could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the
migrations, modernisation and contact with other
communities, these communities tend to develop and
adopt new traits which may not essentially match with
the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity
test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing
the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part
of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit
extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on
the ground that his present traits do not match his
tribes' peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits,
deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus,
the affinity test may be used to corroborate the
documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria
to reject a claim.
14. As such, it is held that the affinity test may not be
regarded as litmus test for establishing link of the applicant
with the Scheduled Tribe. Insofar as the reliance on some of
the entries pertaining to the petitioner's relatives from the
paternal side showing the caste 'Mana Kunbi' is concerned,
perusal of the said document would reveal that, the caste of
the said person is written as 'Mana Kunbi'. As observed by
this Court in Manisha Pundlik Dadmal (supra) that, Koonbee
has become synonymous then with agriculturist. The
reference is given from the Gazetteer of India Maharashtra
State - Nagpur District (Revised Edition) (First Edition 1908
and Second Edition (Revision 1966) under the heading
"People of Hindu Caste mentioned as Mana agriculturist", it
is recorded that (i) Manes and Dhanojes are the lowest
sub-divisions and (ii) Manes appear to be Manas who have
become Kunbis. This Court held that, the position prevailing
prior to 1869-1870 or in 1908, therefore, shows that then
people from other castes/tribes were presenting themselves
as 'Kunbi Manas'.
15. Mere some stray entries as Kunbi or Mana Kunbi
recorded in respect of caste of some of the relatives of the
petitioner from their paternal side, the documentary evidence
of pre-Constitutional era specifically oldest documents, which
clearly certifies that, the petitioner's great great grandfather to
be 'Mana' could not have been lightly brushed aside by the
Scrutiny Committee. So far as the statement made in the sale
deeds by the relatives of the petitioner that, they are not
belonging to S.T., cannot be considered in the present case as
there is oldest entry showing the petitioner as 'Mana' and
moreover, such statements may have been given to avoid
sanction from the Collector for such sale. The petitioner has
submitted the documents in his possession including one
document showing entry as 'Kunbi' of 1946 in respect of
Kisan Sadashiv and Vishwanath Sadashiv. However, the
oldest entry of 23/01/1918 in respect of Ragho Wagh (great
great grandfather) is shown as 'Mana'. Thus, if Ragho Wagh
(genealogy not disputed) was shown as 'Mana', his heirs
cannot belong to 'Kunbi'. The learned Scrutiny Committee
discarded this document of 23/01/1918 that though Ragho
Wagh is shown as 'Mana' and it was entered into register that
he gave birth to one daughter, there are no other documents
placed on record by the petitioner in respect of daughter. This
reason for discarding the oldest entry of dated 23/01/1918 is
absurd. In the first place, the document which is produced by
the petitioner is more than 100 years old document and duly
verified by the Vegilance Cell. Expecting the petitioner to
place on record the document of child born is erroneous.
Similarly, in the case in respect of the document which is in
respect of Sadashiv Mana dated 26/08/1930 which is the
death extract of daughter of Sadashiv Mana. In some of the
documents, the person who is shown as Mana described as
Mane Kunbi, however, it is a settled position of law that
oldest entry will prevail over the subsequent entries. Thus,
entry dated 23/01/1918 showing great great grandfather as
'Mana' will prevail over other entries. When main ancestor is
shown to belong to 'Mana', subsequent entries in respect of
other ancestors as 'Mana Kunbi and Mani are of no
significance. Even there are entries of 'Mana' in respect of
Sadashiv, he is also shown as 'Mana Kunbi'. If forefather of
Sadashiv is shown as 'Mana', the entry in respect of Sadashiv
as 'Mana' needs to be considered. However, it is not the case
of respondent no. 1 the Scrutiny Committee that these
documents are either fraudulent or fabricated one. The
genuineness of these documents have not been doubted in the
report of Vigilance Cell. As such, in our considered opinion,
we find that the Scrutiny Committee has grossly erred in
rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner which claim is
supported by the document dated 23/01/1918. As such, the
petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to
pass the following order:-
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 19/06/2023 passed by the
respondent no. 1 - the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in the matter of the
petitioner - Mr. Pranal s/o Chintaman Wagh, in Case
No. 11/510/Preser/022023/4735, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
iii) It is held that the petitioner has duly established
that he belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe as included
in Entry No. 18 of the Constitutional (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950.
iv) The respondent no. 1 - the Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby
directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner of
Scheduled Tribe 'Mana' within a period of four weeks.
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: 15/10/2024 18:17:36
