Bombay High Court
Tushar S/O Devidas Mangale vs The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secy., S.T. ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:467-DB
1 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2023
Tushar S/o Devidas Mangale,
Aged about 23 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o At-Post - Anji (Nursinha),
Tah. Ghatanji, Distt. Yavatmal. PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Vice-Chairman / Member-
Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal.
2. The Principal,
Jawaharlal Darda Institute of
Engineering & Technology, Yavatmal.
3. The Vice-Chancellor/Registrar,
Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
Amravati.
4. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Pandharkawda, Dist-Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Ms. Preeti D. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 /State.
Ms. Shaad Mirza, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Sakina Dawood, Advocate h/f Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman,
Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
-----------------------------------------------
2 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- 11th DECEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 16th JANUARY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned
Counsels for the respective parties.
3. The challenge is raised to the order dated
15.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.1/Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for short-"the Committee"),
thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs
to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
4. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe. On 15.06.2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kelapur, issued a caste certificate in his favour. The Petitioner,
3 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
through his college, submitted a caste certificate along with
documents before the Committee for its verification. Since the
Committee was of the view that the Petitioner's claim was
doubtful, the documents submitted by him were forwarded to
the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The Vigilance Cell
thoroughly enquired about this and submitted its report to the
Committee. During the enquiry, some adverse entries were
found against the Petitioner's caste claim. The Committee vide
show cause notice dated 28.11.2022 called upon him to submit
his explanation to the said adverse entries found in the
Vigilance enquiry. In response, the Petitioner, with his father,
appeared before the Committee and submitted his explanation.
After considering the Vigilance Cell report, documents on
record, and explanation submitted by the Petitioner, the
Respondent No.1/Committee vide impugned order rejected the
Petitioner's Tribe claim. Hence, this Petition.
5. Ms. Rane, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while
assailing the impugned order, submitted that the Petitioner has
produced 27 documents to substantiate his claim; out of them,
4 documents are of Pre-Constitutional Era from 1928 to 1944,
4 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
wherein his ancestor's caste was recorded as 'Mana'. The entry
dated 14.04.1928 pertains to his great-grandfather, whose caste
was recorded as 'Mana'. However, the Committee has not
considered those oldest entries but erred in considering the
subsequent entries and rejected the claim of the Petitioner.
Therefore, rejecting the Petitioner's claim by the Committee is
illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, she submitted for
allowing the Petition.
6. In order to substantiate her contentions, Ms. Rane,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has relied upon various
judgments of this Court (i) Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende Vs.
Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School Dongargaon, Salod and others,
reported in 2018(2) Mh.L.J. 460, (ii) Gitesh s/o Narendra Ghormare
Vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and
others, reported in 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 933 and (iii) Umesh s/o
Ganeshrao Jambhore Vs. Vice-Chairman / Member-Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and
others, reported in 2022(3) Mh.L.J. 31. It is pertinent to note that
all three judgments have been held not to be laying good law by
the Full Bench of this Court in Maroti S/o Vyankati Gaikwad and
5 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
others V/s Deputy Director and Member Secretary, Amravati and
others reported in 2023 SCC online Bombay 1991.
7. Per contra, Mr. Dhumale, learned AGP for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 4/State, vehemently contended that
during the Vigilance Cell enquiry, the Vigilance Cell discovered
the adverse entries to the claim of the Petitioner from 1946 to
1963, wherein his ancestors' caste was recorded as 'Kunbi' and
'Mani'. The Petitioner has not explained those adverse entries,
and therefore, the passing of the impugned order by the
Committee is just and proper, and no interference is required in
it. He further canvassed that the Petitioner had not mentioned
the name of the father of Kanhu, so Sayatri's name was also not
shown in the genealogical tree. Therefore, the documents of
1928 and 1941 cannot be relied upon by the Committee while
considering the claim of the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner is
not entitled to benefit from those documents; the Committee
has rightly discarded those documents. Hence, he submitted
that the Petitioner failed to prove his caste as ' Mana'. Therefore,
he prayed for rejection of the Petition.
6 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
8. We have appreciated the rival submissions and
perused the record and judgments relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner. We have perused the original record
and returned it.
9. At the outset, it is evident that the Petitioner, to
substantiate his claim, has produced as many as 27 documents,
out of which '4' are from the Pre-Constitutional Era from 1928
to 1944. The document dated 14.04.1928 is a copy of the birth
and death register extract; the entry pertains to ' Kanhu S/o
Kondu Mana', Resident of Village Anji, Tahsil Ghatanji. The
Committee, as well as the Vigilance Cell, has not disputed that
the ancestors of the Petitioner were the residents of Village Anji,
Tahsil Ghatanji. The Committee has discarded the said
documents only on the ground that Kanhu's father's name has
not been mentioned in the genealogical tree. The reason
recorded by the Committee is neither proper nor just to discard
the said documents. On the contrary, it was incumbent on the
Committee to ascertain whether the said entries were about the
ancestors of the Petitioner or not. Mere discarding the said
documents on the ground that the father's name of Kanhu is not
7 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
mentioned in the genealogical tree is not just and proper.
Therefore, we do not find any substance in the said finding.
10. Similarly, the Committee has discarded the entries in
the extract of birth and death registers of Village Anji, Tahsil
Ghatanji, of June 1941 and 17.10.1944 pertaining to Sayatri.
According to the Petitioner, Sayatri was born in June 1941 and
died on 17.10.1944; therefore, her name was inadvertently not
mentioned in the genealogical tree. Sayatri, a girl, was born to
Kondya Kanhu, the cousin grandfather of the Petitioner. The
Committee and the Vigilance Cell have not disputed the said
entries but only discarded the documents, as Sayatri's name was
not mentioned in the genealogical tree. Had it been the fact that
the committee and the vigilance cell disputed her relationship
with the petitioner's ancestors, then discarding the same could
be considered, but in the absence of the same, recording the
finding to discard the documents is not proper. Hence, we do
not find any substance in the finding recorded by the
Committee in that regard. Thus, it appears that the Committee
has discarded the entries dated 14.04.1928, June 1941, July
1941 and 17.10.1944, particularly on the ground that names of
8 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
the ancestors are not mentioned in the genealogical tree. In fact,
the explanation given by the Petitioner in that regard has to be
considered; it would have been seen as just and proper.
Therefore, not mentioning the name of Sayatri or the father of
Kanhu in the genealogical tree, who belongs to Anji village,
would not affect the Petitioner's claim that they were his
ancestors. Neither the Committee nor the Vigilance Cell has
disputed the said entries. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
Committee in that regard appears to be improper, contrary to
the fact on record, and based on the said finding, the order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
11. Furthermore, it appears that the Petitioner has also
produced the extract of the birth and death register of his
grandfather Laxman Mana, wherein it is mentioned that a son,
namely Narayan, was born to him on 06.08.1941. However, the
Committee discarded the said document on the ground that the
Petitioner has not produced any other document pertaining to
Narayan to corroborate the said entry. On the contrary, it was
incumbent on the Committee to ascertain the said entry through
the Vigilance Cell, but it failed to ascertain the said entry and
9 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
discarded the said document merely on the ground that the
Petitioner has not produced other document in support of the
same to corroborate the said entry. Thus, the finding given by
the Committee in that regard appears to be incorrect.
12. On perusal of the original record, it seems that the
Petitioner, in support of his claim, has produced a copy of the
birth and death extract of Anji Village before the Committee for
the years 1928, 1941 and 1944 related to his ancestors. The
Petitioner claims that Kanhu is the son of Kondu, the great-
grandfather and resident of Anji Village. Similarly, Kondba
Kanhu was his cousin-grandfather and a girl, Sayatri, was born
to him in 1941 and died in 1944. The entries are also from the
same village. Neither the Committee nor the Vigilance Cell
disputed or denied the said entries. However, their names did
not appear in the family tree; only on that ground alone
discarded the documents. In fact, it was obligatory on the
Vigilance Cell to verify those entries whether those entries
pertain to the ancestors of the Petitioner or not, but without
verifying the said entries, the same were discarded, and thus,
the finding recorded by the committee needs to be interfered
10 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
being improper.
13. It further reveals that the Committee has relied on
the adverse entries of the years 1946, 1949, 1951 and 1958,
wherein the caste of the ancestors of the Petitioner was
recorded as "Kunbi, Mane and Mani". Notably, those entries are
subsequent to those of 1928, 1941, and 1944. It is the settled
position of law that the oldest entry has a more probative value
than subsequent entry, and therefore, as per the settled position
of law, the Committee should have considered the oldest entry
while considering the claim of the Petitioner instead of
discarding the same. Thus, in our view, the Committee erred in
discarding the oldest entries, which have more probative value
than the subsequent entries, and therefore, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
14. In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR
2023 SC 1657 that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held
that" the overall material on record has to be considered and
the report of the Vigilance Cell cannot be treated to be the sole
11 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
basis for discarding such claim. Likewise, the affinity test cannot
be treated as a litmus test, particularly when the pre-
constitutional document exists and is placed on record. It is
further held that the document of the Pre-Constitutional Era has
the highest probative value than the subsequent document."
( emphasis supplied.)
15. In the background above, it seems that the
Committee, without considering the oldest pre-constitutional
document placed on record, has discarded the petitioner's claim
solely on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove his
ancestors' adverse entries from 1946 to 1963. In fact, the
Committee has to consider the oldest documents produced on
record while considering the petitioner's claim.
16. Thus, to sum up, it reveals that the Petitioner, in
support of his claim, has relied upon the document of his great-
grandfather, cousin-grandfather and Grandfather, wherein their
caste has been recorded as 'Mana' and the said documents are
the oldest documents from 1928 to 1944. Therefore, those
documents have a greater probative value than the subsequent
documents. Thus, in our view, as per the mandate laid down in
12 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(supra) and the mandate laid down in the decision of Maroti S/o
Vyankati Gaikwad and others (supra) and the facts on record, it is
evident that the Petitioner has proved that he belongs to 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe, and therefore, the finding recorded by the
Committee appears contrary to the mandate laid down above as
well documents on record, based on which the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Consequently, the same
is liable to be quashed and set aside.
17. The impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by
Respondent No.1/Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. It
is declared that the Petitioner belongs to the ' Mana' Scheduled
Tribe.
18. The Respondent No.1/Committee shall issue a Caste
Validity Certificate in favour of the Petitioner within four weeks
from the date of production of the copy of this judgment.
19. The Petition is accordingly allowed in the above
terms.
13 WP.232-2023. JUDGMENT.odt
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2025 10:25:25
