[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Balkrushna Shrirame vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5346-DB
wp 124-2020.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2020
Rajendra S/o Balkrushna Shrirame
Age 42 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Tishti (B.K.) Post Telgaon,
Tah. Kalmeshwar, Dist. - Nagpur.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
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. District Maleriya Officer (DMO)
Marakacheri, Diksha Bhoomi Road,
Nagpur.
4. Primary Health Center Weltur, Tah.
Kuhi, District - Nagpur
5. Executive Magistrate Saoner, Office
at Tahsil Office Saoner, Tah. -
Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.P. Dhok, Advocate for petitioner
Shri H.D. Futane, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5/State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 124-2020.odt 2/10
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.04.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging
the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 passed by Respondent No. 1
-- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur,
(hereinafter referred to as 'Scrutiny Committee'), in Proceeding No.
JC/TCSC/NGP/III/102/31/2011-12, Case ID: 6-ST/2011/11341,
whereby the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Petitioner's claim
to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, enumerated at Sr. No. 18 of the
Scheduled Tribes List for the State of Maharashtra.
3. The "Mana" community was declared as a Scheduled Tribe in
relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1956, and upon
reorganization of States under the Bombay Reorganization Act,
1960, was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State
of Maharashtra. By the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Order (Amendment) Act, 1976, the area restrictions previously
applicable to the Mana community were removed, and the
community stands listed at Entry No. 18 of the Scheduled Tribes
List for Maharashtra.
4. The Petitioner holds a "Mana" Scheduled Tribe caste
certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Saoner, in Rev. Case
No. 598/MRC-81/95-96 dated 20.10.1995, and has been working
in the establishment of Respondent No. 3 -- District Malaria Officer
since 21.10.2000. Respondent No. 1 referred the Petitioner's claim
to the Police Vigilance Cell, which submitted its report dated
09.04.2012. After issuing show cause notice and hearing the
Petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order
dated 29.12.2017 invalidating the Petitioner's Mana Scheduled
Tribe claim.
5. The Petitioner had placed the following documents on record
in support of his claim:
Sr. Document Person Relationship Caste Year
No.
1 School Leaving Daulat s/o Grandfather's Mana 30.06.1927
Certificate, Z.P. Nago Brother
Primary School
Kothurna
2 School Leaving Anandrao Uncle Mana 01.07.1950
Certificate Zibal
6. We have heard Shri. Prashant P. Dhok, learned Counsel for
the Petitioner and Shri. H.D. Futane, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that all
documents placed on record consistently show "Mana" caste entry,
including a pre-independence document of the grandfather's
brother Daulat s/o Nago dated 30.06.1927, which the Scrutiny
Committee has failed to consider. It is further submitted that the
validity certificates of the Petitioner's uncle Gunvanta, brother
Narendra, and sister Geeta, all granted by the same Scrutiny
Committee, were not considered while deciding the Petitioner's
claim, contrary to the settled principle that the same ratio must be
applied to blood relatives.
8. It is also submitted that the adverse entries of "Mani" and
"Manikunbi" in only two documents cannot override the consistent
"Mana" entries in the oldest documents, as per the ratio in Madhuri
Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , and that
the Scrutiny Committee failed to identify any specific person who
allegedly tampered with the records, without which the entries
cannot be branded as fraudulent. It is lastly submitted that the
Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to conduct an affinity test in
the absence of any information about the ethnic and
anthropological characteristics of the Mana tribe, and any negative
finding on affinity without such basis is illegal and unsustainable.
9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that the first page of the Petitioner's service book carries
the caste entry as "Mana S.B.C.", wherein "S.B.C." denotes Special
Backward Class, clearly indicating that the Petitioner does not
belong to the Mana Scheduled Tribe.
10. It is further submitted that the Police Vigilance Cell found the
following adverse entries in the school records of the Petitioner's
blood relatives:
Sr. Document Person Relationship Caste Year
No.
1 Revenue Record Anandrao Uncle Mani 1950
Extract Zibal
2 Revenue Record Balkrushna Father Mani 1958
Extract Zibal Shrirame Kunbi
11. It is also submitted that the validity certificates of the
Petitioner's sister Geeta and brother Narendra were issued without
Police Vigilance enquiry and without affinity test, and the adverse
documentary evidence now on record was not before the
Committee. Consequently, the said validity certificates cannot be
applied to the Petitioner's case. In support thereof, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader places reliance upon (i) Milind
Katware v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 MH.L.J. 572; (ii)
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
AIR 2013 SC 58; (iii) Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, (2017)
8 SCC 670; and (iv) Ansh Gharat v. Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, W.P. No. 2999 of 2024.
12. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel
for the respective parties and perused the record. The Scrutiny
Committee rejected the Petitioner's claim on the following grounds:
(a) adverse entries of "Mani" and "Mani Kunbi" found during Police
Vigilance enquiry; (b) discrepancy between School Leaving
Certificate and School Admission Register of the Petitioner's
paternal grandfather; (c) validity certificates of sister and brother
of no assistance; and (d) affinity test unsatisfactory.
13. As regards ground (a), the finding that "Mani" and "Mani
Kunbi" entries constitute contra-evidence is directly contrary to the
binding declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya w/o.
Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra 2023 16 SCC 40 , wherein
the Court has unequivocally held that "entry 'Mani' has to be read
as 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe". The Scrutiny Committee treating such
entries as adverse thus has no legal basis whatsoever and renders
the impugned order perverse on its face.
14. As regards ground (b), the School Leaving Certificate of
Anandrao Zibal dated 16.10.2007 shows the caste as "Mana",
whereas the same school record obtained by the Vigilance Cell
dated 05.10.2018 shows the caste as "Mani". This discrepancy
raises a serious question as to the reliability and integrity of the
records obtained by the Vigilance Cell, more so when the earlier
record consistently showed "Mana". The Scrutiny Committee,
without conducting any further enquiry and without obtaining a
Fingerprint Expert's report, has summarily concluded that the
School Leaving Certificate was procured by alteration, which
conclusion is not supported by any cogent evidence on record and
is accordingly unsustainable.
15. As regards ground (c), under 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 Rules, 2003, reference to the Police Vigilance Cell is not
mandatory in every case and is to be resorted to only when the
Scrutiny Committee considers it necessary. The Scrutiny Committee
cannot now take advantage of its own omission to conduct
vigilance enquiry in the cases of the Petitioner's sister and brother,
and use the same as a ground to deny benefit of their validity
certificates to the Petitioner. This Court in Apoorva d/o. Vinay
Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1
and Others [W.P. No. 1504 of 2010] has held that when blood
relatives hold valid certificates granted by the very same Scrutiny
Committee, the Petitioner is entitled to a validity certificate on the
same ratio. The validity certificate of the Petitioner's uncle
Gunwanta Daulat Shrirame was also granted by the same Scrutiny
Committee on 04.01.2010. The Scrutiny Committee cannot blow
hot and cold in the same breath, and such contradictory conduct
renders the impugned order liable to be quashed on this ground
alone.
16. As regards ground (d), the adverse finding on the Affinity
Test is equally unsustainable. This Court in Mana Adim Jamat
Mandal v. State of Maharashtra reported at (2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 513
has laid down detailed guidelines for evaluation of affinity of
members of the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, which the Scrutiny
Committee has failed to follow. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of
Maharashtra 2023 16 SCC 415 has further held that once pre-
constitutional documents establish the tribe claim of blood
relatives, the same ought to be accepted as clinching evidence. The
pre-independence document of school leaving certificate of the
Petitioner's grandfather's brother Daulat s/o Nago dated
30.06.1927 showing the caste as "Mana" is a clinching piece of
evidence which the Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate in
its proper perspective.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
29.12.2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny
Committee has acted in a perverse, arbitrary, and illegal manner in
complete disregard of the binding precedents of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court. Accordingly, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.12.2017, passed by
Respondent No. 1 -- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur, in Proceeding No.
JC/TCSC/NGP/III/102/31/2011-12, Case ID: 6-ST/2011/11341, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Respondent No. 1 -- Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue
a caste validity certificate to the Petitioner certifying him as
belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
