wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2019 OF 2026 1. Miss. Sushma D/o Baburao Gharat, Aged about 25 Years, Occupation : Student. 2. Miss. Rekha D/o Baburao Gharat, Aged about 30 Years, Student, Both at Tirri, Post Minsi, Tahsil Pawani, District Bhandara. .... PETITIONERS // VERSUS // 1. The Deputy Director/Member Secretary, Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia, Room No.214, 2nd Floor, District Collector Office, Gondia – 441601. .... RESPONDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for petitioners. Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 14.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.08.2026 JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondent/State. 2. The order under challenge is dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia, in validating the caste claim of the petitioners as ‘Mana’. 2026:BHC-NAG:10875-DB wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (2) 3. As per the contentions of the petitioners, they are real sisters and belong to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Serial No.18 in the Constitution Order 1950. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara has issued the Tribe Certificate in favour of petitioner No.1 on 22.08.2023 and in favour of petitioner No.2 on 31.07.2023. Petitioner No.1 Sushma d/o Baburao Gharat has completed graduation in Bachelor of Commerce, whereas the petitioner No.2 has completed a Diploma in Elementary Education. The petitioner No.1 submitted her tribe claim of ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe on 18.12.2024, whereas the tribe claim of the petitioner No.2 was referred on 13.01.2025. 4. As per the contention of the petitioners, despite several documents are placed on record including the documents of the pre-constitutional era, the Committee has not considered the same and invalidated the claim of the petitioners illegally and erroneously. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the birth extract showing birth entry of a female child namely Jayee dated 30.04.1930 recorded his great-grandfather as ‘Mana’, copy of the birth entry of daughter of Rakhdu cousin grandfather of the petitioners is of 31.01.1949 recorded as ‘Mana’ and thereafter during the post-constitutional era also there are consistent entries showing the blood relatives of the petitioners as ‘Mana’. The Committee has swayed away wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (3) by the entry that the birth entry of 1930 is in the name of Jayee, whereas the name of the daughter of Tukaram in the family tree was shown as Jamnabai. He submitted that there is always an abbreviation of the names in the family and, therefore, the entry was taken in the said name. The Vigilance report also shows the said documents showing the forefathers of the petitioners recorded as ‘Mana’. He submitted that the respondent Committee has not disputed the existence of those documents. The relationship of the petitioners with Kamla is also not disputed. The claim of the petitioners is also invalidated on the affinity test. Now, it is well settled that the affinity test is not a litmus test and, therefore, the order passed by the Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the entry in the name of Kamla d/o Rakhdu Tukaram was recorded as ‘Mani’ and not ‘Mana’. She invited our attention towards the original documents and submitted that, on perusal of the documents, it reveals that the document is written in Marathi and the ‘uh’ (ß h Þ) is unclear. However, it reflects that the daughter of Rakhdu is recorded as ‘Mani’ and not ‘Mana’. Thus, adverse entries are there. She placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad Vs. Deputy Director and wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (4) Member-Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati reported in 2023 (6) ABR 419. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the family tree on which the petitioners relied upon is reproduced as follows: oa'kkoGh rqdkjke jk[kMw xaxkckbZ f'kojke ukjuojs teukckbZ tkaHkksjs y{e.k n;kjke mnkjke dkarkjke deykckbZ ;sxksjke tkaHkksjs 'kksHkk fgojkt tkaHkksjs ek.khd oanuk x.ks'k egsanz jktsanz ik;y jfouk vfer eqjyh/kj nsonkl jatuk dfjuk f'kokuh lqty fujk'kk foey 'kdqaryk xaxkckbZ xqykc ckcqjko HkkÅjko 'kkyhd jkejru yfyrk fu:iky js[kk lq’kek ¼vtZnkj½ m’kk izeksn ukjuojs ckGd`".k wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (5) 7. It is not disputed that both the petitioners have competed their education and now, for the job purpose they are in requirement of the Validity Certificate. The issuance of caste certificates in their favour by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.08.2023 and 31.07.2023 is also not disputed. Their caste claims were forwarded for validation on 18.12.2024 and 13.01.2025 respectively. The petitioners placed reliance on the post-constitutional documents i.e. the birth/death extract of daughter of the great-grandfather of the petitioner namely Tukaram, whose daughter’s name was recorded as ‘Jayee’ dated 30.04.1930. They have also relied upon the birth entry of the daughter of Rakhdu Tukaram Mana namely Kamla dated 12.01.1949, who was also recorded as ‘Mana’. The caste claims of the petitioners were forwarded for the Vigilance inquiry. On perusal of the Vigilance report, which shows that the Vigilance Cell relied upon the document of the year 1949. The Vigilance also relied upon the birth entry of the daughter of Rakhdu Tukaram. The only contention of the Vigilance is that the birth entry is showing Rakhdu Tukaram as ‘ekuh] tkr ekuhph osykaVh vLi"V fnlr vkgs’. On this report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 on 27.03.2025 and petitioner No.2 on 01.04.2025. Both the petitioners have explained the said entries and stated that Rakhdu Tukaram was recorded as ‘Mana’ and not wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (6) ‘Mani’. Similarly, they relied upon the birth entry of 30.04.1930 showing the birth of daughter of great-grandfather Tukaram. It is vehemently submitted by the learned AGP that said Jayee is not shown in the family. The explanation given by the petitioners shows that immediately after the birth, the said entry was taken. There is always an abbreviation of the names in the family and, therefore, merely because the name was recorded as Jayee is not sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioners. It is submitted that the daughter of Tukaram is shown in the family tree as Jamnabai and, therefore, the petitioners have proved their caste claim and, thereby, the petitioners are entitled for the Validity Certificate. 8. Learned AGP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that now the Full Bench has already clarified that the entries in the Presidential (ST) Order 1950, were inviolate and could not be tinkered with; nor could be construed as an umbrella, so as to include any sub-tribe or part thereof, in such entry. When the Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’, was included in the Entry 18 and was granted the benefit of Scheduled Tribe Status, it was only the Tribe ‘Mana’, alone which could claim such status and none else, whatever be its prefix or suffix with the word ‘Mana’, or inter se relation with ‘Mana’. No tribe/community, sub-tribe or part thereof by whatever names like ‘Badwaik Mana’, wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (7) ‘Khand Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, Maratha Mana’, ‘Gond Mana’, ‘Mani/Mane’, etc could be said to ha been included in the tribe ‘Mana’, which was accorded a Scheduled Tribe status by its inclusion in Entry 18. 9. Thus, he submitted that in view of the above observation of the Full Bench, the entry ‘Mani’ would not help the present petitioners to prove the caste claim and, therefore, the Committee has rightly considered the same. 10. After hearing both sides, we have perused the Vigilance report as well as the original entries. As far as the observations of the Vigilance Cell as well as the observations of the Committee that when the birth entry of the daughter of Rakhdu Tukaram, the cousin-grandfather of the petitioners, at that time, it was recorded as ‘Mani’. However, on perusal of the certified copy of birth extract from the register of the birth entries maintained in the Collector Office, Bhandara, it is nowhere revealed that there is entry as a ‘Mani’, it clearly show the entry was recorded as ‘Mana’. Therefore, the observation of the Vigilance as well as the Scrutiny Committee that Rakhdu Tukaram was recorded as ‘Mani’ is not a correct observation. Similarly, there is a previous entry showing birth of daughter of Tukaram in the name of ‘Jayee’ instead of ‘Jamnabai’. Admittedly, the said entry was taken immediately after the birth i.e. on 30.04.1930 itself. It is a wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (8) common knowledge that the naming ceremony never took place on the same day i.e. on the birth of a child and, therefore, some times birth entries are taken by nickname or by an abbreviation. It seems that Jamnabai was recorded as Jayee on 30.04.1930 and at that time, Tukaram was recorded as ‘Mana’. It is not the case of the Scrutiny Committee that the said Tukaram is not related to the petitioners. As per the family tree relied upon by the Vigilance as well as by the petitioners both show that Tukaram was having two daughters namely, Gangabai and Jamnabai. As per the family tree, Gangabai was elder to Jamnabai, therefore, there is a substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the entry was taken on the day of birth itself and there was no naming ceremony, therefore, the birth entry of Jamnabai was taken by her nickname cannot be ruled out. It is well settled that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents. 11. Here in the present case, pre-constitutional as well as the post-constitutional documents consistently shows the forefathers of the petitioners as well as the blood relatives are recorded as ‘Mana’. As far as the observation of the Committee that the wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (9) entry of birth of the daughter of Rakhdu was recorded as ‘Mani’ which does not revealed from the record. Even accepting the said contention, there is a previous document of 1930 showing the great-grandfather of the present petitioners recorded as ‘Mana’ and there is no dispute as to the relationship. It reveals that the Scrutiny Committee has ignored the said pre- constitutional entries and on the basis of assumption that the unclear entry in the name of Kamla daughter of Rakhdu was recorded as ‘Mani’. In fact, the document nowhere reflects that said entry was recorded as ‘Mani’. As already observed that the pre-constitutional document furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents and, therefore, it requires to be accepted. 12. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the caste claim of the petitioners was invalidated on the ground of non-proving the affinity test. Now, this issue is not res integra. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others MANU/SC/1070/2025 by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors, wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (10) MANU/SC/1316/2011, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, which reads as under: “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 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 wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (11) 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.” 13. The Scrutiny Committee ignored the above said facts. Similarly, the Scrutiny Committee also ignored that the pre-constitutional documents clearly establish that petitioners belong to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribes. 14. Insofar as, the caste claim of the petitioners are concerned, there is sufficient material on record to show that they have established their caste claim as they belongs to ‘Mana’. Insofar as the affinity test is concerned, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand (referred supra) with the change in times, migration and modernisation, the joining of people from the tribal population in the mainstream of the society, the fact that they are not in a position to recollect the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (12) etc. of their tribe cannot be solely a ground ipso facto to deny the said claim. Recently also the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others MANU/SC/0299/2023, reiterated the position that the affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. It has been held that when the 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. It has been reiterated that the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioners’ caste claim is not sustainable in law. In the result, we proceed to following order: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the respondent Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia, is hereby quashed and set aside. wp.2019.2026.judgment.odt (13) (iii) It is held that petitioners belong to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. (iv) The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue Tribe Validity Certificates to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court. 16. Rule is made absolute in the above said terms. No order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate. Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 19:28:55