[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nikhil S/O Dharmraj Ghodmare vs Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5351-DB
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
1/20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5892, 1039 & 8007 OF 2018
---------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Nikhil S/o Dharmraj Ghodmare, Aged
about 25 yrs., Occu.: Service, R/o
Sillewara, Chandni Chowk, Qtr. No.270,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
-Versus-
RESPONDENT : 1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. The General Manager, Maharashtra State
Power Generation Co.Ltd., Estralla Batteries
Expansion Building, Dharavi Road,
Matunga (East), Mumbai-400019.
3. The Chief General Manager (GEN),
Maharashtra State Power Generation
Co.Ltd., Thermal Power Station,
Khaparkheda, Distt. Nagpur-441102.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Preeti Rane, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent No.1.
Mr.C.A.Mohgaonkar, Adv.for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
2/20
WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Shrikant S/o Krushnaji Ghodmare, Age 31
years, Occu.: Service, R/o Plot No.53,
Shriram Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur.
-Versus-
RESPONDENT : 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur, through its Chairman,
Committee for Scheduled Tribe Claims,
Office at Adivasi Vikas Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
Giripeth, Nagpur, Tq. and Distt. Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Manager, Bank of India, Nagpur Zonal
Office, Nagpur Zone-I, Human Resources
Department, Bank of India Building, 3rd
Floor, S.V.Patel Marg, Nagpur-440 001.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramtek, Tahsil
Ramtek, District Nagpur.
5. The Collector, Nagpur, Office at
Collectorate Premises, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. P. Dhok, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5.
Mr.T.Y.Sharif, Adv. h/f Mr.A.T.Purohit, Adv.for the respondent No.3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 8007 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Lalita D/o Krushnarao Ghodmare, Aged
about 35 yrs., Occu.: Service, R/o Plot
No.53, Shriram Nagar, Udaynagar Ring
Road, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
3/20
-Versus-
RESPONDENT : 1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. The Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, Through its
Chief Executive Officer.
3. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
4. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre,
Gumthala, Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Preeti Rane, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Sheikh Majid, Adv.for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 9TH MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 6TH APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since common issue regarding invalidation of caste
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
certificates of the petitioners is involved in all the petitions and the
petitioners are related to each other, the same are decided by this
common judgment.
4. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the
impugned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby
invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners belonging to 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe and seeking issuance of validity certificates in their
favour.
5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1039 of 2018 challenges
the provisions of section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste &
Tribe, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Categories (Regulation of
Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rule 9 of
the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of Certificates Rules, 2003.
6. In all these petitions, the petitioners are in service under
different departments. All the petitioners belong to Mana Scheduled
Tribe. Their caste certificates were forwarded to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification. After the proposals were received, the
Scrutiny Committee directed the vigilance enquiry and after
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
considering the vigilance report and the replies were filed by the
respective petitioners, the Scrutiny Committee by the impugned
orders invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners on the ground of
lack of documentary evidence, affinity test and area restriction.
7. Since the issue involved in these petitions is same, brief
facts are taken from Writ Petition No.5892 of 2018 as a lead petition.
It is contended by the petitioner that he was selected on merits as
Technician-III on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category and
was appointed on the establishment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide
appointment order dated 18/02/2016. The petitioner submitted
proposal along with necessary documents amongst which pre-
independence documents are enlisted as under:
Sr. Type of Name on the Relation Tribe Date
No. Document document with the
petitioner
1. Extract of Dolya s/o Raoji Great Mana 1912-13
Bandobast Mana grandfather
Misal
2. Extract of Shrawan s/o Great Mana 25/11/1947
Kotwal Panji Tanba Mana grandfather
(Birth)
3. Extract of Urkuda s/o Cousin Mana 28/01/1943
birth Rujya Mana great
register grandfather
4. Extract of Mahadeo S/o Cousin Mana 29/06/1948
birth Dolba grandfather
register
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
8. The Vigilance Cell procured the documents of 1947, 1948
and 1943 in which Mana entry is shown. The Vigilance Cell relied on
the following adverse documents:
Sr. Type of Name on the Relation Tribe Date
No. Document document with the
petitioner
1. Extract of Maroti Relation not Mani 1953
Dakhal Mahadeo Dolba mentioned
Kharij
2. Document Dolya s/o Raoji Great great Mani - -
P-1 grandfather Kunbi
3. Document Dolya s/o Raoji Relation not Mani - 1913-14
P-1 mentioned Kunbi
9. The petitioner contended that the documents of pre-
independence era depicting the entry as "Mana" have greatest
probative value in the eyes of law and by considering the said
documents, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have granted validity
certificate to the petitioner. The other ground for invalidating the
caste claim is affinity test. The petitioner contended that the affinity
test is not a litmus test and the petitioner has duly established his
relationship with the persons mentioned in the documents of pre-
independence era. Insofar as adverse finding on area restriction of
respective petitioner is concerned, it is apparent that after 1976
exercise of removal of area restriction, said aspect looses its relevance.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that The committee
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
has not come across any material which shows that caste "Mana" has
been shown either by interpolation or tampering the document. The
petitioner further contended that validity certificates were issued to
his blood relatives namely Chandrakant and Kishor Ghodmare by the
same Scrutiny Committee on 31/03/2009, annexed to the petition at
Annexures 8 & 9. In spite of this position, the Scrutiny Committee
relied upon the documents, which have no probative value, since the
said documents are of post independence era. The Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners erroneously. Therefore,
the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. In regard to the challenge to the provisions of section 6 of
the Act of 2000 and Rule 9 of Rules, 2003 in Writ Petition No.1039 of
2018 are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the State Government has not followed and ignored the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case
reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 as to how Scrutiny Committee should be
constituted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003 is not inconsistent with the
guidelines and in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri
Patil's case (supra). The State Government is not entitled to take
contrary view which would challenge the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
Court. Therefore, the said provisions are unfair, ineffective and
violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner and cannot be
allowed to remain in the Statute and it would be violation of
provisions of Constitution of India. In view of this position, the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee cannot exercise the powers without
procedure and without legal sanction.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
following citations in support of their claim:
(i) Gitesh s/o Narendra Ghormare v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 933.
(ii) Judgment in Writ Petition No.5171 of 2018 (Mrunali d/o
Shamrao Wakade v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Gadchrioli and others) and other connected matters, dated
30/08/2018.
(iii) Judgment in Writ Petition No.5481 of 2018 (Manisha D/o
Pundlik Dadmal v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Gadchrioli and others), dated 30/08/2018.
(iv) Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, AIR 1995
SC 94.
(v) Rohit Ranjeetsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (2)
Mh.L.J. 384.
12. Per contra, the learned AGP has taken us through the
impugned order and contended that the entry of Mana Kunbi exists in
the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell and hence mention of
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
caste as Mana in old documents is not determinative. The learned
AGP submits that in spite of caste Mana being mentioned, the affinity
test is necessary and therefore, affinity test will conclusively establish
that the petitioner does not belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. She
submits that the impugned orders are just, proper and reasonable and
therefore no interference is required. In support of her case, the
learned AGP relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No.2871 of 2024
(Sakshi D/o Govindrao Narnaware v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur), dated 09/09/2024.
13. Heard submissions of both the parties at length and
examined the documents and authorities relied upon by their
respective counsel.
14. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as
under:
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
15. Admittedly, the document pertaining to Shravan s/o Tanba
Mana of 1947 as well as documents pertaining to Urkuda s/o Rujya
Mana of 1943 and Mahadeo s/o Dolba Mana of 1948 were duly
verified by the Vigilance Cell. On perusal of the report of Vigilance
Cell as mentioned above, all the documents of 1947, 1948 and 1943
showing "Mana" entry were duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. There
is remark by the Vigilance Cell that there is overwriting in the entry
"Mana". However, in the entry in respect of documents pertaining to
Ramkrushna Mahadeo Dolba and Kaushi Urkuda Rujya, we have
minutely perused the documents from the record, it appears that in
both the documents there is entry of 'Mana' and there appears no
overwriting. So far as other documents showing entry of 'Mani' are
post 1950. Similarly, the petitioner has placed on record P-1 of 1912-
17, wherein Tanya S/o Raoji Mani entry is there. However, it appears
that above that entry, there is mention of 'Kunbi' with initials. At any
rate, this entry of 'Kunbi' is not made at the instance of the petitioner
because by inserting 'Kunbi', the petitioners or their forefathers were
not going to get any benefit. Why this entry of 'Kunbi' is there and
who has made the same, is not explained by the Committee.
Admittedly, it is in a different ink and there appears to be initials
against that entry of 'Kunbi'. This fact is duly noted by the Scrutiny
Committee, but not explained. The Bandobast Misal i.e. P-1 of
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
1912-17 in respect of Dolya s/o Raoji shown as 'Mana'. The entries in
the documents of 1947, 1948 and 1943 showing caste as "Mana". So
far as P-1 Extract in respect of Tanya s/o Raoji of 1912-17, the
Committee has observed that above the word 'Mani', there is word
written as 'Kunbi' by different ink. Similarly, P-1 Extract in respect of
Dolya s/o Raoji of 1913-14, 'Kunbi' word is written above the word
'Mana'. For the sake of convenience, the portion where 'Kunbi' word
inserted in Extracts of P-1 of 1912-17 are reproduced as under:
16. We have minutely perused the documents of 1943 in
respect of Urkuda Rujya blessed with daughter Kaushi. However, we
have not seen any overwriting or scoring or interpolation in the said
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
document. The Scrutiny Committee accepted the document of 1947.
The observation made by the Scrutiny Committee that in Revenue
Record there is overwriting or scoring in the entry of caste is totally
erroneous. If the word 'Mani', 'Mana' was written by scoring 'Kunbi'
entry, one can understand the same. However, here above the word
'Mana' somebody has written 'Kunbi'. The petitioners or their
forefathers by doing such insertion of entry 'Kunbi' are not getting any
benefit, nor they have any access to the said record to make such
insertion. At any rate, there is no overwriting, nor any scoring nor any
interpolation at the instance of the petitioner. Though the Scrutiny
Committee has observed that the petitioner produced Extract of P-1
for the year 1912-17 in respect of Dolya s/o Raoji showing entry
'Mana', whereas the Vigilance Cell collected the P-1 Extract pertaining
to Dolya s/o Raoji of 1912-17 showing 'Kunbi Mana'. We have
perused both the documents. In both the documents the caste is
shown as 'Mana'. There is no mention of 'Mani'. Moreover, in both
the documents above the word 'Mana', there is word written as
'Kunbi' with different ink. The Scrutiny Committee without referring
the documents as it is, tried to portray that the petitioner has
manipulated the documents. Thus, in our considered opinion, the
Scrutiny Committee has recorded perverse findings just to invalidate
the caste claim of the petitioners any how.
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
17. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the
validity certificates issued in favour of Chandrakant Maruti Ghodmare
and Kishor Maruti Ghodmare, cousin and uncle of the petitioner
respectively on the ground that the said certificates were issued
without conducting vigilance enquiry and in view of the order passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The validity certificates granted to the
blood relatives are not cancelled till date and the same are holding
the field to grant validity certificate to the petitioners. The learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has
issued circular on 06/10/2006, wherein it is mentioned that the
words 'pending Supreme Court Case' should be removed from the
certificates. In view thereof, the Scrutiny Committee ought not to
have discarded the certificates issued in favour of blood relatives from
the paternal side of the petitioners. In this regard this Court in
Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, specifically in
para-9 held as under:
"9. ............In the circumstances, we are of the view
that the committee which has expressed a doubt about
the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has
described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have
arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining
to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate
as well as on the future generations in many matters
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and
therefore where a committee has given a finding about
the validity of the caste of a candidate another
committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood
relative who applies. A merely different view on the
same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with
the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however.
no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is
of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by
fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste
validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste
claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for
cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the
matter, we are of the view that the petition must
succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste
validity certificate to the petitioner."
18. So far as validity of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act,
2000 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Certificates Rules, 2003 are concerned,
this Court already upheld the validity of above provisions and
therefore, no need to make any observation in this regard.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
Gitesh s/o Narendra Ghormare v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur and others (supra), wherein this Court held as
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
under:
"If there are number of documents containing
different kinds of entries of caste/tribe like 'Mana',
'Mane', 'Mani', 'Mana Kunbi', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Khand
Mana', 'Maratha Mana' and so on, the duty of the Court
will be to ascertain the dominant entries having greater
probative value and record a specific finding of
conclusive nature as to whether entries can be construed
as 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry in the
cluster of tribes at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order. Merely because certain
documents indicate entry of caste/tribe other than
'Mana' is not enough to reject the claim. What is
prohibited is that the entry 'Mana' in Scheduled Tribes
Order does not include or exclude the entries like 'Mana
Kunbi', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Maratha Mana',
'Kunbi Mana' and so on, which are probably known to
exist as separate caste/tribe or sub-caste/tribe, The
interpretation, clarification, explanation of the entries in
the Scheduled Tribes Order is not permitted. The
interpretation of entries in the documents cannot be
confused with the interpretation entry in the Scheduled
Tribes Order. It is not the finding of the Committee that
the father of the petitioner obtained the caste validity
certificate by playing a fraud or that the grant of
certificate was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the
certificates indicate that the same are issued in view of
the decision of the Apex Court. A merely different view
on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative
would not entitle the Committee to reject the claim.
Therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the
certificate in favour of the petitioner. The order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the
petitioner for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' cannot be
sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set
aside by granting a declaration that the petitioner has
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
established his claim on the basis of the documents
produced on record for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. 2011(6)
Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919, Rel. (Paras 23, 31 and 32)."
Learned counsel Ms.Rane in support of her contention that
there is no question of any area restriction, so also in support of her
contention that the Committee has not pointed out any material or
evidence, which holds that a caste by name 'Mana' exists independent
of Mana Scheduled Tribe, the learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on Mrunali d/o Shamrao Wakade v. The Vice-
Chairman/ Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchrioli and others (supra), wherein in paras
12 and 13 held as under:
"12. Insofar as adverse finding on residence/native
place of family of respective petitioners is concerned, it is
apparent that after 1976 exercise of removal of area
restriction, said aspect looses its relevance. The fact that
petitioner or his family hails from such area at the most
can be corroborative piece of evidence in favour of the
petitioner. It cannot be used against him. This aspect had
already been looked into in judgment delivered by this
Bench in the case of Chhaya d/o Jasvantsingh Hajari and
others v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims, Amravati and others (reported in 2018 LawSuit
(Bom) 1403).
13. In present matters, the Committee has not come
across any material which shows that caste "Mana" has
been shown either by interpolation or tampering. The
Committee has only, because of absence of vigilance
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
exercise, ignored validities and taken recourse to affinity.
There is a general observation which records that in
Vidarbha area, "Mana" caste also exists and they are
mostly cultivators. Their caste is recorded as "Mana",
"Mane", "Mani", "Mane Kunbi", "Mani Kunbi" or "Kunbi".
The Committee observes that this "Mana" (so called
upper caste Mana) take advantage of similarity of name
and pose themselves as candidates belonging to "Mana"
Scheduled Tribe. However, this observation of
Committee is not supported by any evidence. The
Committee has not pointed out any case law or any other
material which holds that a caste by name "Mana" exists
independent of "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. In absence of
this material, a general observation as mentioned supra,
cannot have the effect of ignoring validities earlier
granted."
The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of her
contention that 'Koonbee' has come to the synonyms with agriculturist
and it is common thing to hear farmer of Brahmin or other caste
describe themselves as a 'Koonbee Mana', placed reliance on Manisha
D/o Pundlik Dadmal v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchrioli and
others (supra), wherein this Court held in paras 9 and 10 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 :-
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
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."
The learned AGP has placed reliance on the judgment of
Sakshi D/o Govindrao Narnaware v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (supra), in which this Court
relied on Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad and others v. Deputy Director &
Member-Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati and others (Writ Petition No.12/2022, decided
on 17/04/2023) and held in para-17 as under:
"(17) Bare perusal of the above dictum, it appears
that this Court has categorically held that the persons
belonging to tribes or sub-tribes such as 'Badwaik Mana',
'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', "Kshatriya Badwaik
Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana',
'Mani'/'Mane', 'Mane Ku', 'Mana Ku', 'Ku Mana', 'Mana
Kunbi", 'Patil Mana', etc. cannot be held to be included
in the Scheduled Tribe "Mana", in entry 18 in the
Presidential (ST) Order 1950. Thus, one cannot claim
the status of a Scheduled Tribe."
However, it is informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that this judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble
Apex Court by the petitioners therein and there is stay to the effect,
operation and execution of the said judgment.
20. In view of above discussion, the petitioners are entitled to
get validity certificates. Hence, all the writ petitions are allowed.
21. The impugned orders dated 11/04/2018 in Case No. lvk@
vtizrlukx@III/130/31/2015 (Writ Petition No.5892/2018), dated
29/12/2017 in Case No.lvk@vtizrl@ukx@II/133/31/12-13 (Writ
KHUNTE
WP-5892.18+2-J.odt
Petition No.1039/2018) and dated 17/09/2018 in Case No.lvk@
vtizrlukx@III/148/31/2013 (Writ Petition No.8007/2018), passed
by the respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside.
22. It is held and declared that the petitioners have duly
established that they belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The
respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of "Mana"
Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners within a period of four weeks.
23. Since the petitioners are presently working in their
respective departments, the interim order, if any, is confirmed. In view
of disposal of the petitions, the pending application(s), if any, is(are)
disposed of.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte KHUNTE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/04/2026 18:45:08
