1 wp 3483.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3483 OF 2026 Harsha d/o Manohar Ghodmare, Aged about 23 years, Occupation – Student, R/o at Post-Kalambi, Tahsil – Kalmeshwar, District – Nagpur. …. PETITIONER VERSUS The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur. …. RESPONDENT ____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Himani Kavi, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Narale, A.G.P. for the respondent. ____________________________________________________________________ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 06-08-2026 JUDGMENT : (PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the respondent–Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, whereby the petitioner's claim for validation of caste as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated. 2026:BHC-NAG:10170-DB 2 wp 3483.26.odt 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner's proposal for verification and validation of her Scheduled Tribe caste certificate was forwarded to the respondent–Scrutiny Committee on 18.10.2021 along with the requisite documentary material. During the course of the proceedings, the Police Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted its vigilance report. Upon consideration of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, the vigilance report and the material available on record, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order dated 28.10.2022, invalidated the petitioner's claim as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. We have heard Ms. Himani Kavi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Sachin Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–State. We have also carefully perused the original record and proceedings produced by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order principally on the ground that the respondent–Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in its proper perspective and has ignored the oldest and most probative documents placed on record. According to her, the Scrutiny Committee has selectively relied upon certain material while discarding the pre-Constitution documents, which, according 3 wp 3483.26.odt to the petitioner, unequivocally establish the tribal status of her paternal lineage. It is further submitted that the petitioner's real brother, Yashvant Manohar Ghodmare, had faced an identical invalidation of his caste claim as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, which came to be set aside by this Court by judgment and order dated 25.02.2026, pursuant to which he has been issued a validity certificate. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's claim deserves to be examined in the light of the said adjudication, particularly when the relationship is undisputed. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent–Scrutiny Committee has erroneously treated certain contra entries pertaining to the period between 1892 and 1986 as conclusive against the petitioner. According to her, the petitioner had specifically explained, by filing a detailed reply before the Scrutiny Committee, that she had no relationship whatsoever with the persons in whose records the caste was shown as "Kunbi", and therefore those entries could not have been relied upon against her. It is further contended that the explanation offered by the petitioner was neither considered nor dealt with in the impugned order. She also submits that the findings recorded on the affinity test are equally unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply explaining the cultural, ethnological and traditional characteristics of the tribe, which was discarded without assigning cogent reasons. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned order reflects a predetermined approach to reject the petitioner's claim despite the existence of pre-Constitution documentary evidence 4 wp 3483.26.odt supporting her tribal status. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant material, erroneous appreciation of evidence and failure to assign adequate reasons, rendering it unsustainable in law. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the findings recorded by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee. He submits that the Scrutiny Committee has undertaken a detailed scrutiny of the documentary evidence and the vigilance report before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish her claim. According to him, though reliance was placed by the petitioner upon documents pertaining to the years 1892–1896, the vigilance enquiry revealed that the caste of Zibalya Shama Mana, reflected in the original record, was recorded as "Kunbi", which, according to the respondent, was not fairly disclosed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the record contains several contra entries describing the caste as "Kunbi", "Kunbi Mana", "Mani Kunbi" and "Mani", thereby creating serious doubt regarding the petitioner's claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe "Mana". In such circumstances, it is submitted that the respondent–Scrutiny Committee was justified in holding that the petitioner had failed to establish her claim by reliable and consistent documentary evidence. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that although the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's cousin great-grandfather 5 wp 3483.26.odt Shankar Zibal records his caste as "Mana", the corresponding original school admission register contains a different caste entry. According to him, in view of such inconsistencies in the primary record, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee rightly preferred the original record over the subsequent extract and, therefore, no fault can be found with the conclusions recorded in the impugned order. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully examined the original record and proceedings made available by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee. The impugned order indicates that the Scrutiny Committee has considered, inter alia, the following documentary evidence while adjudicating the petitioner's caste claim: S.N. Type of Document Name Relation with the applicant. Caste Mentioned Date of evidence Remarks 1. P-6, No.10, Account No.35, Nagpur Settlement Zibal Kunbi Great-great- grandfather Kunbi 1892-96 Found in vigilance enquiry 3. P-6, No.10, Account No.35, Nagpur Settlement Ziblya s/o Shama Mana ---- Mana 1892-96 Submitted by applicant 8. School record Higher Pri. School, Adm. No.17, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Shankar Zibal Cousin great- grandfather Kunbi Mana 18-09-1922 (date of adm.) (1st Std) 01-11-1917 (date of birth) Found in vigilance enquiry 9. School record Higher Pri.School, Adm. No.17A, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur. Shankar Zibal Cousin great grandfather Mani Kunbi 15-06-1929 4st Std. 02-11-1917 (date of birth) Submitted by applicant 10. School record Higher Pri. School, Adm. No.17, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Shankar Zibal Cousin great- grandfather Mani Kunbi Hindu 18-09-1922 (date of adm.) 31-01-1929 (date of leaving) (3rd Std) Found in vigilance enquiry. 6 wp 3483.26.odt 11. School Leaving Certificate, Higher Pri. School, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur, Adm. No.17 Shankar Zibal Cousin great- grandfather Mana 18-09-1922 (date of adm.) 31-01-1929 (date of leaving) (3rd Std.) Submitted by applicant. 12. School record Higher Pri. School, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Deorao Ganpat s/o Zibal Ghodmare Cousin grandfather Kunbi 01-04-1946 (date of adm.) 01-03-1939 (date of birth) Found in vigilance enquiry 13. Declaration made during adm., Higher Pri. School, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Deorao Ganpat Ghodmare Cousin Grandfather Kunbi 01-04-1946 Submitted by H.M. during hearing. 14. School record Higher Pri. School, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Bhaurao Ganpat s/o Zibal Ghodmare Real grandfather Kunbi 01-04-1946 Found in vigilance enquiry 15. Declaration made during adm., Higher Pri. School, Kalambi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. Bhaurao Ganpat Ghodmare Real grandfather Kunbi 01-04-1946 Submitted by H.M. during hearing 10. The petitioner has placed substantial reliance upon the documentary evidence produced before the respondent–Scrutiny Committee, including certain documents which were traced during the vigilance enquiry. Insofar as Document No.1 is concerned, the respondent itself has recorded that the same was discovered during the vigilance enquiry. We have perused the said document, which is placed at page 30 of the paper-book. A plain reading thereof reveals that it pertains to Account No.35 and unmistakably records the caste as "Mana". Significantly, Document Nos.1 to 3 in the tabulated statement reproduced by the Scrutiny Committee emanate from the very same account, namely Account No.35. Despite this, while Document Nos.1 and 2 correctly reflect the caste entry, the Scrutiny Committee has, in respect of Document No.3, recorded the caste as "Kunbi", though the original 7 wp 3483.26.odt document records it as "Mana". Such a finding is demonstrably inconsistent with the original record and discloses a patent error in appreciation of documentary evidence. A finding founded upon a misreading of the original record cannot be sustained in law. 11. Equally unsustainable is the treatment accorded by the respondent– Scrutiny Committee to Document Nos.8 to 11. A careful examination of the original record reveals that all these documents pertain to one and the same individual, namely Shankar Zibal, who is the petitioner's great-grandfather. Curiously, the Scrutiny Committee has treated the entries appearing in relation to the same individual as distinct and independent contra entries, notwithstanding the fact that they arise from the same source. It is inconceivable that the caste of a person would vary in contemporaneous records relating to the same period and the same educational record. This very aspect had fallen for consideration before this Court while adjudicating the caste claim of the petitioner's real brother, wherein it was specifically observed that the documents corresponding to Serial Nos.10 to 12 related to the very same educational record, namely the Third Standard, and that the reasoning adopted by the Scrutiny Committee that they pertained to different standards was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. 12. Upon our independent scrutiny of the original record, we do not find separate and independent documents of Shankar Zibal containing different caste entries so as to justify the conclusion drawn by the respondent–Scrutiny 8 wp 3483.26.odt Committee. On the contrary, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has repeatedly counted different extracts of the same record as separate contra entries, thereby artificially inflating the number of adverse entries against the petitioner. Such an approach is wholly impermissible. The exercise of multiplying the same document to create an impression of numerous inconsistent entries not only reflects improper appreciation of evidence but also strikes at the fairness expected from a quasi-judicial authority exercising jurisdiction 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 Act, 2000. Such a method of evaluation deserves to be strongly deprecated. 13. The respondent–Scrutiny Committee appears to have lost sight of the very object and purpose underlying its constitution. The jurisdiction conferred upon the Committee is to objectively verify the genuineness of a caste claim by undertaking a fair, impartial and judicious evaluation of the documentary evidence, vigilance enquiry and other relevant material, in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the principles consistently laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Committee is expected to assess the evidence in its entirety and not to search for reasons to reject a claim. In the present case, the petitioner had specifically explained in her reply that Punjya s/o Zingu Kunbi, alleged to be the brother of Ziblya, had no relationship whatsoever with her family lineage. 9 wp 3483.26.odt This categorical explanation has neither been examined nor discussed in the impugned order. Instead, the Committee proceeded to rely upon documents which were not shown to pertain to the petitioner's blood lineage, thereby rendering its conclusions vulnerable on the ground of non-consideration of a material defence and reliance upon irrelevant evidence. 14. Another significant circumstance which has escaped the consideration of the respondent–Scrutiny Committee is that the petitioner's real brother has already been granted a validity certificate certifying him as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 25.02.2026, whereby the order invalidating his caste claim was set aside. The principle governing such a situation is no longer res integra. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, this Court has held that once a validity certificate has been granted to a close paternal blood relative after due adjudication, the same constitutes a relevant and weighty circumstance while considering the claim of another member of the same lineage, unless it is demonstrated that the earlier validity certificate was obtained by fraud or that there exist distinguishing circumstances warranting a different conclusion. Admittedly, neither of these contingencies exists in the present case. The petitioner and her brother trace their claim to the same paternal lineage and, therefore, in the absence of any material distinguishing their cases, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee could not have ignored the 10 wp 3483.26.odt binding evidentiary value of the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother. 15. If such an approach adopted by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee is permitted to stand, it would inevitably result in contradictory and irreconcilable determinations regarding the caste status of members belonging to the same family and paternal lineage, thereby creating uncertainty and undermining the consistency expected in caste verification proceedings. The cumulative effect of the misreading of the documentary evidence, multiplication of identical records as separate contra entries, failure to consider the petitioner's explanation, and complete disregard of the caste validity certificate issued to her real brother renders the impugned order legally unsustainable. We are, therefore, satisfied that the findings recorded by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee are vitiated by perversity, non- application of mind and improper appreciation of the material on record, warranting interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the respondent–Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in Case No. JC/TCSC/NGP/I/362/31/2021, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondent–Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying her as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of an 11 wp 3483.26.odt authenticated copy of this judgment. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) adgokar