1 WP-J-4097-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4097 OF 2018 PETITIONER : Tirupati Venkati Sarlawar, Aged about : 42 years, Occ. Service as a Multipurpose Health Worker, Resident of Ward No.4, At and Post Alapalli, Tahsil Aheri, District Gadchiroli. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli Through its Chief Executive Officer. 2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Complex Area, Near Zilla Parishad Building, Gadchiroli through its Deputy Director/Member-Secretary. 3. District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A. W. Paunikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 03/02/026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17/02/2026 JUDGMENT (PER NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:2871-DB 2 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 2. The present petition raises two distinct yet interrelated challenges. First, the petitioner impugns the order dated 14.6.2018 bearing no. JC/TCSC/GAD/III/50/33/1999-2000 passed by Respondent No.2, Tahsil Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, invalidating the petitioner' s “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe claim and seeks a declaration that he belongs to “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe. Second, the petitioner seeks restraint upon Respondent Nos.1 and 3 from terminating his services as Multipurpose Health Worker, a post he has continuously held since June 1999. 3. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21.6.1999 under the “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe category. The Committee initially invalidated his claim vide order dated 23.2.2001. The said order was challenged in W.P. No.1176/2001, wherein this Court vide judgment dated 20.3.2015 quashed the invalidation order and remanded the matter for de novo enquiry with a direction to decide the claim within one year. As the claim remained undecided beyond the stipulated period, W.P. No.6844/2016 was filed, and this Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2016 once again directed the Committee to decide the claim within one year. The petitioner duly appeared on 29.12.2016 and submitted his application. 3 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 4. Mr. N.C. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that all documents including the caste certificate dated 28.4.1997, Dakhal Kharij entry for the period July 1981 to April 1986, and School Leaving Certificate dated 15.2.2000 consistently reflect Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Cell report forwarded along with the show cause notice dated 20.2.2018 an alleged entry of "Mannepawar" for the year 1952. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 9.4.2018 contending that no caste or tribe by the nomenclature of Mannepawar, Mannepu or Manewar exists, and that Mannewar is the only recognized Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. 5. Learned counsel contends that the Committee relied solely upon one document wherein "Manyapawar" was recorded, while ignoring all other documents consistently mentioning Mannewar. The Vigilance Report refers to an alleged "Manewar" entry dated 1974 which was never served upon the petitioner, thereby denying him an opportunity to explain the same. The entry "Manyapawar" is nothing but a corrupted pronunciation of Mannewar. 6. It is submitted that Mannewar is a Telugu-speaking tribe from the erstwhile Chanda district. The name derives from the Telugu word "Mannem" meaning forest, while "war" is the 4 WP-J-4097-2018.doc plural termination in Telugu, thus signifying "people of the forest." Mannewar was listed as a backward class vide notification dated 4.12.1941 and was included as a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Tribes (Modification) Order, 1956. The tribe is found only in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. 7. Lastly, it is contended that the Committee proceeded without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been in continuous service since 1999 and places reliance upon W.P. No.2594/2018 and W.P. No.757/2010 with connected petitions. 8. For the sake of brevity, the family tree is reproduced below: 9. Per contra, Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.2, submits that the Scrutiny Committee examined the claim in accordance with the guidelines. The Committee conducted home, school and other enquiries through 9. Per contra, Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.2, submits that the Scrutiny Committee examined the claim in accordance with the guidelines. The 5 WP-J-4097-2018.doc Committee conducted enquiries through the Police Vigilance Cell. Show cause notice dated 26.2.2018 was issued along with the complete Vigilance Cell Report. The petitioner filed his reply on 9.4.2018 and attended the hearing on 12.4.2018, where his detailed statement was recorded. 10. It is submitted that the Vigilance Cell collected documents revealing entries of "Mannepawar" in the school and revenue records of the petitioner' s father, Vyankati Jakulu. The Kotwal Panji contains an entry of "Manewar" (not Mannewar) dated 2.9.1974. The information furnished by the petitioner regarding traits, characteristics and customs was inconsistent with the Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the petitioner failed to demonstrate socio-cultural affinity with the claimed tribe. The Vigilance Cell found following contra entries as below :- v- dz- uko mesnokjk’kh ukrs miyC/k iqjkok iqjkO;kr uewn tkr iqjkO;kps o”kZ 1 f=irh O;adVh tdqyq vtZnkj tUe uksanhps dksrokyh jftLVj ekusokj 02@09@1974 2 O;adVh tdqyq oMhy nk[ky [kkjht mrkjk eU;iokj 01@04@1952 11. Lastly, it is submitted that the Census of India 1931, Volume XII (Central Provinces & Berar) explicitly records the 6 WP-J-4097-2018.doc existence of "Mannepawar" caste within Sironcha Tahsil (presently in Gadchiroli District). The validity of the Mannepawar entry is dependent upon the decision in W.P. No.1212/2019 (Nikhil Bodewar v. Scrutiny Committee) dated 11.3.2025. The Committee has forwarded a proposal for Review Petition to the Tribal Research & Training Centre vide letter dated 14.10.2025. As per Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, the burden of proof lies upon the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to prove his caste claim, and the order is just, proper and correct. 12. Mr. A.W. Paunikar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21.6.1999 under the ST category with a condition to submit caste validity as per Clause 8 of the selection order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim vide order dated 23.2.2001. Pursuant to this Court' s directions in W.P. No.1176/2001 and W.P. No.6844/2016, the Committee finally passed the order dated 14.6.2018 invalidating the claim. As per the Government Resolutions dated 15.6.1995, 30.6.2004 and 21.10.2015, the services of the petitioner have not been terminated. The petition is devoid of substance and may be dismissed. 7 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 13. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner belonging to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. As can be seen from the said impugned order, the oldest document on which reliance was placed was School Leaving Certificate dated 09/08/1974 of the petitioner. The second oldest document was the extract of Admission Register dated 15/07/1981. Both these documents showed “Mannewar” caste. The reasoning for discarding the said document is that the documents found in the Vigilance Cell Enquiry Report show the caste of the father of the petitioner as “Manyapawar”. The said document, according to the Scrutiny Committee, is of earlier point of time and second document pertaining to petitioner’s birth record dated 02/09/1974 reflecting the caste as “Manewar”. 14. We have perused both these documents. As a matter of fact, there is no contra entry found in the Vigilance Cell Report except these two documents. Thus, there is consistent entry of Mannewar in documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his caste claim. 8 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 15. As rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have already taken a view in Writ Petition No.2594/2018 (Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare Vrs. Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Desaiganj, Dist. Gadchiroli) in para 19 of the said Judgment could be relevant which is reproduced as under :- “19. So far as contention of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that there are some entries of ' Mannepawar' , which are adverse, however, this issue is already decided in the matter of Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewar (supra), wherein the petitioner has questioned the order by which claim of the petitioner for issuance of validity of belonging to ' Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected. In the said petition, the entry of Mannepawar which found to be the basis for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as that of belonging to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. The reason for invalidating the caste claim in the present matter is also Mannepawar entries. This Court observed in the above referred judgment as under: "7. As regards the available evidence in the form of documents if appreciated, two reasons are recorded by the Committee viz. ' Mannepawar' entry recorded in the school record of the grandfather - Lachanna and absence of entry of the tribal land in the revenue record of land owned by the mother of the petitioner - Ushatai. As regards adverse entry of ' Mannepawar’ is concerned, when confronted with the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to existence of ' Mannepawer' caste, on instructions, he has fairly conceded that there is no caste as "Mannepawar' in any of the statute dealing with the caste 8. As such, there are consistent entries of ' Mannewar' not only in relation to the grandfather of the petitioner but also in relation to the father of the petitioner. As such, the reasons cited by the Committee for rejection of the claim of the petitioner thereby recording a finding that the caste entry in the record of the grandfather of the petitioner is ' Mannepawar' would lead to negation of the claim cannot be sustained. 9 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 10. We are equally required to be sensitive of the fact that the parties like the petitioner inherits his caste from his father. No doubt, even if the document in relation to his mother is taken into account, in absence of entry of Scheduled Tribe in the revenue record the land can be transferred to non-tribal, cannot be accepted as a basis for negating the claim of the petitioner, particularly when such document is in relation to the mother of the petitioner. The negative finding recorded by the Committee, in our opinion, has no basis in law to infer that the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category when relevant rules contemplate that ' blood relation' has to be construed as relation from father' s side." 16. Furthermore, in Writ Petition No.757/2010 with companion Writ Petitions, this Court in Para No.4 recorded as under :- “4. ……….. It is difficult to understand the observations of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that they can agree with the petitioners only if the documents show “Mannewar” and that if they hold so even if the documents show Manewar they would be interpreting the entry “Mannewar” in the list of Scheduled Tribes. The Committee has lost sight of the fact that they were construing and appreciating the evidence in violation to a document and not interpreting an entry in the list of Scheduled Tribes. The observations of the Caste Scrutiny Committee are entirely irrelevant merely because “Manewar is not spelt as the name of Scheduled Tribes “Mannewar”; by reading “Manewar” as “Mannewar” the Committee would not have interpreted the entry in Scheduled Tribe but would have read the certificates correctly.” 17. Somewhat similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Manish s/o Bansidhar Panchgam Vrs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.5119/2016 in which while dealing with identical ground, this Court held that “Manewar” and “Mannewar” are two different tribes. It has been observed that in Maharashtra State, “Mannewar” is a Scheduled Tribe and not “Manewar”. 10 WP-J-4097-2018.doc 18. In view of authoritative pronouncements of this Court mentioned supra, if the reasoning adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is appreciated, we have no hesitation to infer that the petitioner has proved his caste claim as “Mannewar”. The order of the Scrutiny Committee apart from it erroneous in law does not take into consideration. Authoritative pronouncements mentioned supra, therefore, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. The order being perverse is liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER i] Petition is allowed. ii] The impugned order bearing No.JC/TCSC/GAD/III/ 50/33/1999-2000 dated 14/06/2018 passed by the Respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli is quashed and set aside. iii]It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli is directed to issue Validity Certificate accordingly to the petitioner within four weeks from today. 19. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [JUDGE] [JUDGE] Choulwar