Bombay High Court
Sharwari D/O Sunil Chouke vs The Vice-Chairman/ Member Secy., S.T. ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7372-DB
Judgment 1 21wp7400.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7400/2024
PETITIONER:- Sharwari D/o Sunil Chouke,
Aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Gugilwar Layout, Lokhande Plot,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal 445001
// VERSUS //
RESPONDENT:- The Vice Chairman/Member
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Ms. P.D. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner(s)
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for the Respondent/State
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- JULY 07, 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- JULY 29, 2025
JUDGMENT :
- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
..A..
Judgment 2 21wp7400.24.odt
(2) The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner
challenging the order dated 03/09/2024 passed by the
Respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as "the Scrutiny
Committee") whereby the caste claim of the Petitioner came to
be rejected.
(3) The Petitioner claims that she belongs to 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe which is enlisted at Serial No. 18 of the
Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, because the caste certificate dated
04/11/2019 was issued by the Competent Authority in favour of
the Petitioner. The caste claim of the Petitioner, towards 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe, came to be forwarded to the Scrutiny
Committee along with the necessary documents for the purpose
of caste verification on 14/02/2024. The Petitioner submitted the
following old documents before the Respondent - Scrutiny
Committee:-
(a) School leaving certificate of the Petitioner's
grandfather namely Bhanudas dated 19/09/1965 wherein
the date of birth is mentioned as 14/11/1947;
..A..
Judgment 3 21wp7400.24.odt
(b) Service book of the Petitioner's grandfather namely
Bhanudas dated 06/11/1969 wherein the date of birth is
mentioned as 14/11/1947;
(c) Extract of son born to the cousin grandfather
namely Rama dated 04/11/2019 wherein the date of birth
is mentioned as 18/09/1933;
(d) The family tree of the Petitioner's family dated
16/02/2023.
(4) The Petitioner has also placed on record her family
tree which is reproduced as under:-
..A..
Judgment 4 21wp7400.24.odt
(5) The Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee conducted
the enquiry in relation to the caste claim of the Petitioner and
submitted its report on 08/05/2024. The Petitioner submitted her
reply to the vigilance report in which she had specifically stated
that the Petitioner has submitted the pre-constitutional
documents in respect of her blood relatives having greatest
probative value. The Petitioner had denied all the adverse
entries obtained by the Vigilance Officer by placing her
explanation in the vigilance reply. The Vigilance Committee
procured some adverse entries like Mani, Manya & Mana-Kunbi.
These entries are denied specifically.
(6) On perusal of the report of the Vigilance Cell, in the
list of documents procured by the Vigilance Cell during the
enquiry, the document at Serial No. 5 is the oldest document
produced by the Petitioner. Insofar as the Document No. 2
procured by the Vigilance Cell showing the entry as 'Mana
Kunbi', it appears that the daughter by name Sakhu was born to
Rama which is dated 15/08/1928. The Document No. 3 shows
that the said Sakhu D/o Rama expired on 16/09/1931 wherein
the entry is shown as 'Mani'. In the Document No. 4 dated
..A..
Judgment 5 21wp7400.24.odt
17/01/1932, the caste of Rama is shown as Manya. In the
Document No. 5, the caste of said Rama is shown as 'Mana'
which is the entry of 18/09/1933. In the remark column, it is
written as "vtZnkjkus dV~Vw ;k ukokpk mYys[k dsysyk ukgh". In this
document, it is mentioned that Rama gave birth to a male child
namely Kattu.
(7) If the genealogy collected during the enquiry is seen,
it seems that there is a son born to Ramaji by name Kadu. The
Scrutiny Committee discarded these documents only on the
ground that in the statement of Bhanudas Ramaji Chouke, while
mentioning the family tree, the name of Kattu is not given. It is
also discarded on the ground that there is no mention of caste
and only 'Mana' is mentioned. There is no school record or
revenue records pertaining to this person Kattu. In the service
record produced by the Petitioner in respect of her grandfather
Bhanudas Chouke, his caste his shown as 'Mana' and his date of
birth is mentioned as 14/11/1947. His caste shown is recognized
as Special Backward Class under the Government Resolution.
These entries are duly verified. The Petitioner produced on
record the certified copy of the extract of birth & death Kotwali
..A..
Judgment 6 21wp7400.24.odt
register dated 18/09/1933, wherein it is shown that Rama gave
birth to one Kattu. The said entry is of Mouza Sawangi, Tahsil
Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal. It appears that only on the
reason that it is mentioned as Kattu and not Kadu, as mentioned
in the family tree, the caste claim of the Petitioner has been
rejected. This reason cannot be accepted as it is handwritten
entry. There may be some error in writing by the person in the
Tahsil office. It is also a matter of record that the caste of said
Rama, in some places is mentioned as 'Mani' and some places, it
is mentioned as 'Manya', but all these entries are prior to the cut
off date.
(8) The learned Addl. G.P. for the Respondent supported
the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that
there are different entries as Mani, Manya & Mana-Kunbi.
(9) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal
vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003(3) Mh.L.J 513, wherein this
Court, in Paragraph No. 26, has held as under:-
..A..
Judgment 7 21wp7400.24.odt
26. At the cost of repetition we may mention that
there is no tribe mentioned in Entry 18 as Gond Mana.
The decision of the Government that Mana cannot stand
alone to be qualified as Scheduled Tribe is clearly
contrary to the plain language of Entry 18 of the
Scheduled Tribes Order. What the State Government
says is that the only Gond Manas can qualify as
Scheduled Tribe under Entry 18. The entry has not been
read as it is, evidence has been allowed to consider the
entry which is not permissible in view of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Millind''s case which holds that
no evidence can be led for the purpose of construing the
entry.
(10) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Maharashtra & others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal , wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraph No. 30, has held as
under:-
"30. The common pattern found in most of the
group entries is that there is a punctuation mark
comma (,) between one Entry and another Entry in the
group signifying that each one of them is deemed to be
a separate Scheduled Tribe by itself. In the present
case, Entry 18 of the Schedule clearly signifies that
each of the Tribe mentioned therein deemed to be a
..A..
Judgment 8 21wp7400.24.odt
separate Tribe by itself and not a sub-Tribe of ''Gond''.
''Gond'' is a Scheduled Tribe, it is not disputed. As
already noticed that ''Gond'' including Arakh or
Arrakh etc. found in Entry 12 of Amendment Act 63 of
1956 has been done away with by the Amendment Act
of 1976. In Entry 18 of Second Schedule of
Amendment Act of 1976 the word ''including'' was
deliberately omitted, which signifies that each one of
the Tribe specifying in Entry 18 is deemed to be a
separate Tribe by itself. Therefore, "Mana" is not a sub-
Tribe of "Gond" but a separate Tribe by itself and is a
Scheduled Tribe."
(11) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in respect of her
contention that the Scrutiny Committee, if satisfied on the
material produced on record, there is no need to refer the matter
to the Vigilance Cell, placed reliance on the judgment in the
case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 36 of the said
judgment held as under:-
"36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding
an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced
..A..
Judgment 9 21wp7400.24.odt
by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance
Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the
Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for
coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with
the material produced by the applicant. Only after a
case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making
enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test
will arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity
test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity
test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the
test along with all other material on record having
probative value will have to be taken into
consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding
the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a
caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of
the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe
claim in every case."
(12) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Paragraph No. 14, held as under:-
..A..
Judgment 10 21wp7400.24.odt
"14. .....The court has to see whether the
Committee considered all the relevant material placed
before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts
which have led the Committee ultimately record the
finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop
of its own facts."
(13) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 217/2023 (Vanshaj
S/o Arun Sawsakade vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal. It is one of the grounds that the validity certificate
issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner is of 'Mana',
however, it is a Special Backward Class. Therefore, the
explanation was not accepted. It is a matter of record that 'Mana'
Tribe was earlier included in the SBC, however, by virtue of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government has
issued the Resolution dated 02/06/2004 excluding the entry of
'Mana' falling in SBC or OBC category. More importantly, the
entries of Mana are declared to be of Scheduled Tribe category.
There was no reason for the Scrutiny Committee to record the
finding contrary to the Government Resolutions.
..A..
Judgment 11 21wp7400.24.odt
(14) Insofar as the invalidation of the caste of one of the
relatives namely Prashant Chouke is concerned, it cannot be the
reason to reject the caste claim of the Petitioner, as held in the
judgment dated 12/03/2025 passed by this Court, Bench at
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 14111/2021 (Mangesh S/o.
Panditrao Thakur vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) ,
wherein this Court, in Paragraph No. 13, held as under:-
"13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti
Narayan Vishve's certificate and the order has attained
finality right up to the Supreme Court. However, we
have been consistently holding that the decision of the
scrutiny committee would only bind the claimant and
would not bind the blood relatives, for the simple
reason that they are not parties to such adjudication
and that a blood relative may be able to substantiate his
claim by leading cogent and relevant evidence
sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon
him under section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII
of 2001."
(15) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya
Pramod Gajbe vs. the State of Maharashtra & others, 2023 INSC
..A..
Judgment 12 21wp7400.24.odt
663, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 9
and 10, held as under:-
"9. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that
documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the
caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the
highest probative value. It has also been held that if an
applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine
documents of the pre-Constitution period showing that
he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to
discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no
reservations provided to the Tribes included in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order.
10. A perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committee
itself would reveal that the appellant's great
grandfathers birth record show the caste as 'Mana'. The
said document relates to as early as 10th March 1924,
while another document of 14th April 1926 shows as
'Mani'. However, it is pertinent to note, and learned
counsel for the parties also agree, that there is no caste
named 'Mani'. It is thus possible that there could be
some mistake in writing when the caste was written. It
is to be noted that original record is written in Marathi
and not in English. As such, such an error is quite
possible."
..A..
Judgment 13 21wp7400.24.odt
(16) Thus, it can be seen that there could be some mistake
in writing when the caste was written. There is no caste by
name 'Mani'. Insofar as the birth entry of Kadu is concerned, it is
the son of Rama shown in the family tree, which is procured by
the Vigilance Cell. Only on the basis that it is written in the
birth record as 'Kattu' whereas as per the information of the
family tree, it is Kadu, considering the place of birth, name of
the father, there is no scope to doubt this entry. There could be
error in writing either by the Office of Tahsildar, Mouza
Sawangi or of the Vigilance Cell while writing the family tree. It
hardly makes any difference in view of the fact that in the
family tree, the name 'Kadu' appearing as a son of Rama which
family tree is accepted. In view of the legal position and the
evidence on record, the Scrutiny Committee has recorded
perverse finding and without any substance rejected the caste
claim of the Petitioner specifically when her father was already
granted validity of 'Mana' SBC, which was subsequently
included in the Scheduled Tribe category.
(17) Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-
..A..
Judgment 14 21wp7400.24.odt
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 03/09/2024 in Case No.
11/510/Edu/022024/68538 passed by the Respondent -
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is declared that the Petitioner has duly established
that she belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The
Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to
issue caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner as she
belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe within a period of
two weeks.
(d) The Petitioner can rely upon the copy of this
judgment, if necessary, till the certificate is issued in
favour of the Petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
..A..
