Bombay High Court
Ankita D/O Dhananjay Dandekar vs The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:9186-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3610 OF 2022
Ankita D/o Dhananjay Dandekar,
Aged about 26 years, Occ.- Student,
R/o. Devrankar Nagar, Near MSEB
Office, Samarth High School Road,
Amravati. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. .... RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, AGP for the Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 09.09.2025.
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16.09.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per - SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the
parties and at the request of parties.
Judgment 2 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
2. The Petitioner, by this Petition, is challenging
the impugned order dated 23/08/2021; passed by the Respondent -
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
whereby invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner, as "Mana"
Scheduled Tribe.
3. The Petitioner claims to be belonging from 'Mana'
Schedule Tribe and forwarded her caste claim to the Respondent-
Committee along with necessary documents on 20.01.2011. Among
the documents submitted by Petitioner, she has annexed certain pre-
constitutional documents such as the Extract of Dakhal Kharij
Register of grandfather namely Maroti Atmaram (1929/1936/1941),
Extract of birth of daughter born to great grandfather namely
Atmaram Mana (1925), Extract of birth of daughter born to great
grandfather namely Atmaram Mana (1927) along with Family tree
dated 26.2.2019.
4. The vigilance cell of the Scrutiny Committee conducted
an inquiry in relation to the caste claim of the Petitioner and
submitted its 1st report on 27.07.2012, to which the Petitioner sent
her reply dated 29.07.2012.
Judgment 3 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
following citations :
(i) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J.
785;
(ii) Writ Petition No.4237/2022 along with another
connected matter (Dnyaneshwar S/o Shankarrao Dongare Vs. The
Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others), dated 11/08/2025.
9. As against this, the Respondent-Committee, in its reply
contended that during the course of enquiry the Vigilance Cell has
obtained certain documents which are adverse to the claim of
petitioner. These documents were found to be recorded in the name
of Sivram (Great Great Grandfather of petitioner), Maruti Aatmaram
(Grandfather of petitioner), and Jivan Maraotrao (Paternal Uncle of
petitioner), and their caste is found to be recorded as Mana Khaira
(Kunbi), Mana Kunbi Maratha and Hindu Mane in the years 1921,
1944, and 1976.
10. The Respondent has contended that these documents are
from pre-constitutional period and they possess great probative value
Judgment 4 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
while deciding the tribe claim of the Petitioner. Furthermore, the
Respondent contended that the pre-constitutional documents
submitted by the Petitioner of certain family members is not
consonance with the genealogy tree submitted by Petitioner on
20.06.2018 and therefore the Petitioner failed to prove her socio-
cultural affinity with 'Mana' Schedule Tribe.
11. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record and
proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of
the learned AGP and considered the citations placed on record.
12. For the sake of convenience family tree is reproduced as
under:
13. The petitioner submitted as many as 17 to 18
documents, out of which following are the documents prior to 1950.
Judgment 5 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
(I) Extract of Dakhal Kharij Register of grandfather namely
Maroti Atmaram (1929/1936/1941),
(II) Extract of birth of daughter born to great grandfather namely
Atmaram Mana (1925),
(III) Extract of birth of daughter born to great grandfather namely
Atmaram Mana (1927).
14. First vigilance enquiry was conducted and report was
submitted on 27/07/2012. The petitioner duly submitted reply to
the said Vigilance Report. On perusal of first report, it would clear
that there are entries from 22/08/1924, 03/07/2025, 11/01/1927
and 11/07/1936. All entries are of 'Mana'. In spite of this position,
without there being any reason recorded by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, second vigilance enquiry was conducted. In second
vigilance, document dated 28/09/1921 (Page 56 of petition) shown
to be procured by the Vigilance Cell, however, on perusal of the
same, it appears that typed copy is not as per the scan copy. Second
document which was procured in the second vigilance is dated
30/12/1944, here also typed copy is not as per the scan copy. As
observed above, the 1921 entry not as per the scan copy and the
Scrutiny Committee wrongly relied on the same overlooking the
other old documents of 1924, 1925, 1927 and 1936, wherein the
caste is shown as 'Mana' of the forefathers of the petitioner. These
Judgment 6 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
entries of 1924, 1925, 1927 and 1936 were discarded by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is 1921 entry of 'Mana
Khaira Kunbi', which is not at all as per the scan copy of the entry.
So far as 1927 document is concerned, which shows that female
child was born to Atmaram Mana. This document is also discarded
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is no
female child shown in the genealogy. However, this document is
produced by the petitioner and it was verified by the Vigilance Cell.
Again there is entry of 1936 of 'Mana'. This entry is also discarded
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is entry of
'Mana Khaira Kunbi' of 1921. There is entry of 1944 procured by the
Vigilance Cell, however typed copy of the same is not as per the scan
copy. Thus, the Caste Scrutiny Committee bent upon to invalidate the
tribe claim of the petitioner anyhow in spite of the fact that first
vigilance enquiry was conducted, there were no reason to again
directing vigilance enquiry in 2018, after a lapse of six years.
Moreover, what is not reflecting in the scan entry read by the
vigilance enquiry in the typed copy the document of 1921, as we
have already held that it is not as per the scan copy on that basis
discarding other old documents of 1924 and 1925 are not
justiceable.
Judgment 7 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
15. On perusal of remark in 2012 report of the Vigilance
Cell, in that specifically mentioned that after verification of birth
date register of Chandur (Railway), Tahsil Office Chandur (Railway),
there are entries of 1924 to 1927 showing entry of 'Mana'. So far as
entry of Atmaram Mana of 1925, even though there was no bracket
in the scan document, it was written in the typed copy for no reason.
The other entries of 11/01/1927 showing Atmaram as 'Mana'. The
Vigilance Cell procured 1927 entry of Atmaram showing him as
'Mana'. Thus, discarding all these old entries, the entry of 1921,
which is not typed copy as per the scan copy, is considered by the
Scrutiny Committee, the second vigilance itself is directed without
any reason at least not given in the record.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein it is 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 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.
Judgment 8 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
(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."
17. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the
judgment in Writ Petition No.4237 of 2022 (supra), wherein reliance
is placed on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and held as under:
"19. From the above said judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it is clear that the scrutiny committee, while
dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may
be placed on pre-independence documents which is having
higher degree of probative value to the declaration of
status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence
documents. It is further held that the caste scrutiny
committee merely performs the role of verification of the
claim and, therefore, it can only scrutinize the documents
and material produced by the applicant. It is held that in
case the material produced by the applicant does not prove
his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its
own to prove or disprove his claim.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted 12 (2) of the
Rules, 2003 and held that as a matter of routine, the
Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the
application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry,
particularly when sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates
that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the
Judgment 9 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
documents produced by the applicant, in that case only to
refer the documents to Vigilance Cell. In respect of affinity
test, it is held that the affinity test is not a litmus test to
decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in
process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe
claim in every case.
22. It is further clear from the perusal of the impugned
order that the vigilance cell on 21.05.2019 submitted
positive report, however, same was not relied upon by the
committee and directed to consider re-enquiry into the
matter. But the perusal of entire record nowhere
demonstrate that the reasons are recorded while directing
re-enquiry into the matter. Hence, prima facie, it is clear
that the respondent-committee violated Rule 12 (2) of the
Rules-2003."
18. In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), reliance is also
placed on Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims and ors., 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919, wherein it is held as
under:
"22. It is manifest from the aforeextracted paragraph that
the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not
only on a thorough examination of the documents
submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity
test, which would include the anthropological and
ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is
neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule,
which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste
claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad
parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a
caste claim:
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater
reliance may be placed on pre-Independence
Judgment 10 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
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, the 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
tribe's 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."
Judgment 11 J-WP No.3610.2022.odt
19. As such, considering the old documents placed on record
by the petitioner, she has duly established that her forefathers and
she belong to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, we proceed to
pass the following order.
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23/08/2021, passed by the
respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the petitioner has duly established that she
belongs to 'Mana Scheduled Tribe. As such, the respondent-
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati is hereby directed to issue Validity Certificate in
favour of petitioner that she belongs to 'Mana Scheduled
Tribe' within a period of four weeks. The petition stands
disposed of accordingly.
20.. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak/KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/09/2025 10:20:59
