Bombay High Court
Miss. Neha D/O Subhash Gaikwad vs Deputy Director And Member - Secretary, ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8210-DB
1 WP 3519.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3519 OF 2024
Miss. Neha D/o Subhash Gaikwad,
Aged about 18 years,
Occupation-Student,
R/o. Dighi (Mahalle),
Tahsil-Dhamangaon Railway,
District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
Deputy Director & Member -
Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati. .. Respondent
..........
Shri Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. D.V. Sapkal, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent.
..........
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th AUGUST, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th AUGUST, 2025.
JUDGMENT [Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
2 WP 3519.24
2. By this petition, petitioner is questioning the order
dated 26.06.2023 passed by Respondent- Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short
'Respondent-Committee').
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to 'Mana'
Tribe, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribe Order), 1950 at Sr. No.18.
Accordingly, she has been issued the Tribe Certificate in her
favour by the Competent Authority on 31.03.2018.
4. Petitioner referred the Caste Certificate dated
31.03.2018 to Respondent-Committee for verification along
with requisite documents including pre-constitutional document
i.e. birth extract dated 15.11.1923 and School Leaving
Certificate dated 28.06.1939 of great-grandfather, wherein the
caste 'Mana' is specifically recorded in his name. Respondent-
Committee, after submitting the tribe claim, forwarded the said
documents for verification to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance
Cell conducted enquiry and submitted its report.
3 WP 3519.24
5. According to Petitioner, the Committee has procured
one entry of birth, in the name of Ganpat and Sarja, as a son
and daughter of grandfather Laxman Zibal wherein entry is
recorded as 'Mani' (Kunbi). Petitioner was accordingly called to
file reply in response to the notice issued to him after receipt of
Vigilance Cell Report. Petitioner, by her reply dated 12.04.2023
specifically denied the said document stating that Ganpat and
Sarja are not shown in the genealogical tree nor they are
relatives of the petitioner. Hence, the entry relied by the
Vigilance Cell is incorrect.
6. After tendering reply by the Petitioner, Respondent-
Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner
and by the impugned order mainly on relying the documents
procured by Vigilance Cell and particularly the entry dated
07.09.1932 which was denied by the Petitioner, rejected the
caste claim of the Petitioner.
7. After filing of the present petition, the Respondent-
Committee, vide their reply, opposed the petition by stating that
4 WP 3519.24
the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell during the period
1955 to 1965 shows that the caste of Petitioner was recorded as
Mani Kunbi, Mani and Kunbi. Hence, considering the said
entries, Petitioner failed to prove her caste claim on the basis of
documentary evidence as well as affinity test. Hence impugned
order passed by Respondent-Committee is legal and justified.
8. We have heard the respective counsel and perused the
entire record. We have also gone through the original record
produced by Respondent-Committee.
9. It is pertinent to note that the genealogical tree
produced by the Petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee
is not disputed in the matter. According to the same, it is clear
that great-great-grandfather Ziblaji was having only son namely
Laxman (great grandfather). Laxman was having two sons
namely, Ambadas and Gajanan (grandfather). To substantiate
this factual position, the genealogical tree prepared by the
Vigilance Cell is reproduced as under :
5 WP 3519.24
10. The Petitioner, in consonance with genealogical tree,
placed on record the Birth Register Extract of showing the birth
of one son to Laxman, dated 15.11.2023, wherein the caste is
recorded as 'Mana'. Petitioner further relied upon the School
Leaving Certificate of Gajanan, dated 28.06.1939, wherein caste
is recorded as 'Mani'. Hence, according to her, these documents
are being pre-independence era documents clearly shows that
she belongs to Mana Scheduled Tribe.
11. Per contra, Respondent-Committee has relied upon the
sole entry, dated 07.09.1932 of Birth-Death register extract,
wherein Laxman Zibal is recorded to be the caste of 'Mani
Kunbi' having the birth entry in the name of son Ganpat and
6 WP 3519.24
daughter Sarja.
12. We have considered the documents relied by both the
parties. It is noticed by us that documents relied by petitioner
of her ancestors are matched with their name. But the
document relied by Respondent-Committee do not find the
names of children of great grandfather matched with the
descendant shown in genealogical tree. Hence, the entry
recorded by the Vigilance Cell, which is relied by Respondent-
Committee, according to us, found to be illegal.
13. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner, who has relied
upon the entry dated 15.11.2023, which is the oldest entry,
is not disputed by the Vigilance Cell in the impugned order.
On the contrary, the finding is recorded that the entry dated
15.11.2023 is found to be valid entry in the revenue record,
therefore, rejecting the tribe claim of the Petitioner, according
to us, is certainly illegal.
14. It is well settled position of law, while dealing with
documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on
7 WP 3519.24
the pre-Independence documents, because they furnish a higher
degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste.
Further, it is well settled position of law that Caste Scrutiny
Committee performs the role of verification of the claim and
therefore can only scrutinize the documents and material
produced by the applicant. Therefore, only option available
with the Committee is to verify the material produced by the
applicant and if applicant failed to prove his claim, the
Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or
disprove his claim. Hence, considering this legal position, we
are of the opinion that when the oldest/pre-independence
document was available on record, the same ought to have been
relied upon by the Committee Members.
15. Petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment
delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5238/2022
(Ku. Rutuja d/o Banduji Gajbe .vs. Deputy Director and
Member-Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati) decided on 06.03.2024 ,
wherein in Para 12, this Court observed as under :
8 WP 3519.24
12. Having considered the aforesaid discussion it
emerges, that the petitioner has produced the oldest
document dated 10-03-1924 before the Scrutiny
Committee. The genuineness of the said document is
not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee or the
Vigilance Cell. Therefore, being the oldest document
the same has a greater probative value than the other
documents on record. Secondly, entries in respect of
documents dated 21-05-1925 and 14-04-1926 pertain
to the great-grandfather of the petitioner, in which his
caste was shown as 'Mani' and as per the judgment of
the Priya Gajbe (supra), same has to be read as 'Mana'
as the said entry was mistakenly taken in the record as
'Mani'. The birth entry of the year 1935 as 'Mana Kunbi'
i.e. the subsequent entry which is disputed by the
petitioner during her explanation to the show cause
notice. That being so, in our considered opinion, the
oldest entry of the year 10-03-1924 has a greater
probative value than the other documents, therefore,
the same has to be taken into consideration while
deciding the claim of the petitioner."
16. In the circumstances, considering the above said factual
as well as legal position, we are of the considered opinion that
impugned order passed by the Respondent-Caste Scrutiny
Committee being bad in law is liable to be quashed and set
aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the
Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee dated
26.06.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9 WP 3519.24
(iii) It is hereby declared that Petitioner belongs
to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe and accordingly
Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed
to issue the Certificate of Validity in favour of
Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of this order.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
No costs.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/08/2025 18:52:30
