Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 528 (BOM)

Bharati D/o Ramdas Bharde v. State of Maharashtra

2026-02-05

M S Jawalkar, Nandesh S Deshpande

body2026
JUDGMENT : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner by this petition is challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for ‘Mana’ Schedule Tribe and canceling the caste certificate dated 26.07.2007 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha, so also seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 02.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation appointing the petitioner on supernumerary position. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Khapari, Taluka Samudrapur, District Wardha and belongs to ‘Mana’ community notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra under Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India at Sr. No.18. The petitioner was appointed as ‘S.T. Bus Conductor’ under respondent No.3 on 10.07.2013 in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1704/2016 seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the caste claim and protection of service. This Court vide order dated 15.04.2016 directed the respondent No.2 to decide within one year and protected the petitioner's service. On 21.06.2013, the proposal for verification was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2, along with pre-independence documentary evidence : 5. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct inquiry. The Vigilance Officer submitted adverse report dated 03.11.2018 wrongly applying affinity test and area restriction. Consequently, Respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 19.11.2018 to the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that after receipt of show-cause notice, the petitioner along with her father appeared before the respondent No.2 on 23.01.2019 and submitted that all documents showing caste as ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. At the time of hearing, the petitioner inadvertently stated that Laxman and Mahadev are the same person. However, Mahadev and Laxman are real brothers; Mahadev was the younger brother who expired at tender age, which fact was not properly explained before the Committee. 7. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and canceling the caste certificate. Thereafter, the State issued Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 declaring posts of Scheduled Tribe employees whose caste claims were invalidated as vacant and appointing them to supernumerary positions for 11 months. 7. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and canceling the caste certificate. Thereafter, the State issued Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 declaring posts of Scheduled Tribe employees whose caste claims were invalidated as vacant and appointing them to supernumerary positions for 11 months. Despite service protection granted by this Court on 17.02.2020, respondent No.3, based on the impugned order dated 29.01.2019, appointed the petitioner on supernumerary position vide order dated 02.02.2022 by taking away her permanent post with effect from 06.02.2022 to 05.01.2023. 8. It is submitted that upon perusal of the impugned order, the petitioner realized the mistake regarding the relationship between Mahadev and Laxman. At the time of submitting caste claim proposal, the petitioner inadvertently shown in Family Tree affidavit that Laxman @ Mahadev is Grandfather, which created confusion at the time of hearing, resulting in the Committee disbelieving the pre-independence birth certificate of Mahadev. 9. The petitioner placed reliance on Prachita v. S.T.C. Scrutiny Committee, 2025 (5) Mh. L.J. 493; Vinayak Marotrao Mahajan Vs. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Writ Petition No. 5164 of 2022; Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Writ Petition No. 5095 of 2021; Ashwin Rajendra Parate v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2716 of 2022; and Miss Poonam Harichand Gaikwad Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Writ Petition No. 5611 of 2019. 10. For the sake of brevity, the family tree is reproduced below: 11. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner's claim belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe was referred vide communichation dated 21.06.2013 for verification. As per Rule 12(2) of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, the Committee forwarded the case to Police Vigilance Cell on 28.06.2015 for detailed enquiry. 12. It is submitted that the Vigilance Cell submitted its report dated 05.11.2018 and show-cause notice dated 19.11.2018 was issued. The petitioner failed to submit written reply and appeared on 23.01.2019 with oral explanations. The genealogy given in affidavit dated 11.01.2013 shows Raoji – Laxman alias Mahadev - Ramdas - Bharti, but during enquiry, different genealogy was stated without mentioning Mahadev, creating serious inconsistency. 13. It is submitted that the documents acquired during Vigilance Cell enquiry are as under : 14. The genealogy given in affidavit dated 11.01.2013 shows Raoji – Laxman alias Mahadev - Ramdas - Bharti, but during enquiry, different genealogy was stated without mentioning Mahadev, creating serious inconsistency. 13. It is submitted that the documents acquired during Vigilance Cell enquiry are as under : 14. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to submit any records prior to 1950. In absence of pre-constitutional evidence, the Committee rejected these documents as conclusive proof. 15. It is submitted that the birth certificate dated 01.03.1948 pertains to Mahadev born to Ravji and Bhiva Mana. However, during enquiry, paternal aunt and cousin stated Mahadev is not part of their lineage. During hearing on 23.01.2019, the petitioner claimed Laxman was referred to as Mahadev, but no supporting evidence was provided. Discrepancies exist between birth dates of Mahadev (01.03.1948) and alleged son Govinda (01.12.1952), creating unexplained three-year gap. 16. It is submitted that the petitioner later contended Mahadev and Laxman were brothers. However, this fails to address the three-year age difference between Mahadev (born 11.03.1948) and Govinda (born 01.12.1952), raising serious doubts. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce pre-constitutional document and provided contradictory statements regarding customs and traditions. The burden of proving affinity with Mana Scheduled Tribe lies on the petitioner. In Vidarbha, Mana Tribe is negligible in number (only 16 recorded in 1931 Census), and area restrictions were imposed by Amendment Act 108 of 1976. 18. Reliance is placed by learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on Ku. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Thane, AIR 1995 SC 94 ; Ku. Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 995; Ku. Nathabai Maroti Rane Vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, W.P. No. 3836/2013; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SCW 243 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone, 2020 SCC Online SC 1040. 19. In the backdrop of these facts we have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. As can be seen from the order impugned, the petitioner is claiming to be ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. As far as oldest document submitted by the petitioner, it is a birth extract of a male child born to Raoji S/o. Bhiva. As can be seen from the order impugned, the petitioner is claiming to be ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. As far as oldest document submitted by the petitioner, it is a birth extract of a male child born to Raoji S/o. Bhiva. Even if the said document does show name of his son as ‘Mahadev’ and the caste is clearly shown as ‘Mana’, it being a document of pre-constitutional period has certainly more probative value. Next document is school leaving certificate of one Govinda Laxman Bharde which shows the caste ‘Mana’ and is dated 1.1.1963. Furthermore, the vigilance during its inquiry has found admission register of the same person i.e. Govinda Laxman Bharde which dates back to 1960 and 1965 respectively. The reason for discarding the said documents is that the date of birth appearing in the said documents are different. Even though the date of birth in the said document of said person is different, the Committee lost sight of the fact that in both the documents the caste of the said person is shown as ‘Mana’. As far as document submitted by the petitioner are concerned, there are consistent entries of her relatives belonging to ‘Mana’ and there are no contra entries. Even the documents found by the Vigilance in its inquiry consistently shows the caste as ‘Mana’. The reason for discarding the said documents is that they are of recent period and there is no document before 1950 i.e. pre-constitutional period. The findings of the Scrutiny Committee are erroneous inasmuch as only variance in the date of birth cannot be the sole reason for discarding the oldest document as has been done by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case. This fact assumes importance more particularly since in both the documents the caste of the concerned person is shown as ‘Mana’. 20. As we have held time and again that only because there are no documents of pre-constitutional period, that cannot be the sole reason also to discard those entire documents. The said document even though having a less probative value, it has to be appreciated in the light of the settled propositions of law in that regard. In the present case, in spite of our best efforts we could not find such an exercise being undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee. The said document even though having a less probative value, it has to be appreciated in the light of the settled propositions of law in that regard. In the present case, in spite of our best efforts we could not find such an exercise being undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee. The finding of the oldest documents of one Govinda Laxman Bharde is by the Vigilance Cell only and the variance of date of birth as stated by us supra cannot be a sole reason to reject the said claim. This fact assumes importance since the petitioner by way of her affidavit dated 22 nd January, 2020 has cleared air of doubt and stated that even though in the proposal for validation she has stated the name of her grandfather as Mahadeo alias Laxman. In fact, after inquiry it was found that Mahadev and Laxman were brothers and not the same person. She, therefore, by way of said affidavit has filed a fresh genealogical tree which is not at all considered by the Scrutiny Committee. As we have held time and again that post- constitutional documents may be having a less probative value but that cannot be the sole reason for omitting to independently appreciate the same on the touchstone of the settled propositions of law. 21. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned in the present petition is being passed without application of mind and without appreciation of the documents filed on record. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER: (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.1.2019 in Case No.6-ST/2013/10952 is quashed and set aside. (iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is directed to issue her said certificate accordingly within four weeks from the date of this order. (iv) The order dated 2.2.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is also quashed and set aside. (v) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (vi) The petition is disposed of.