6.wp5600.2022jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5600 OF 2022 Dada s/o Namdeorao Gharat Aged about 57 years, Occupation : Retired Teacher, R/o. Plot No.16, Matorshree Nagar, Warora, Tah. Warora, District – Chandrapur. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, Division Nagpur, Through its Member, Secretary, Gadchiroli. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, District – Chandrapur. ... Respondents Mr. Narayan D. Jambhule, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent/State. Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 10.09.2026 JUDGMENT (PER URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. (3) The present petition challenges the order dated PAGE 1 OF 9 2026:BHC-NAG:12360-DB 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt 31.07.2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, invalidating the caste claim of the present petitioner belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. (4) As per contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at serial No.18 of the Scheduled Tribes Order. The petitioner has been issued the caste certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora, District – Chandrapur, on 23.06.2011. The petitioner came to be appointed as a ‘Primary Teacher’ by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur with effect from 14.11.1990. Thereafter, he has availed the benefit of Graduate Primary Teacher with effect from 03.08.1995. The caste claim of the present petitioner was forwarded to the Committee on 21.11.2012. (5) It is the contention of the present petitioner that despite he has relied upon the pre-Constitutional entries showing his forefathers belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, thereafter also the Committee has invalidated the caste claim only on the ground of area restriction and affinity test. The pre-Constitutional documents are verified by the Committee. There are validities in the family. The PAGE 2 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt validity is already granted to the cousin uncle of the present petitioner i.e. Sunil Bapurao Gharat, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Application No.5270 of 2004. Thus, though there are validities in the family, the Committee has not considered the same and invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and hence, he approached the Court by way of present writ petition. (6) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (7) Learned counsel endorsed the same contentions and submitted that family tree which is produced on record shows that original ancestor was Deena, who is great great-grandfather of the present petitioner. He submitted that the son of said Deena namely Kanha was recorded as ‘Mana’ in the year 1918-19 during the pre- Constitutional era. The said entries is verified by the Vigilance report. However, the Committee has considered the aspect of the area restrictions and invalidated the caste claim. He submitted that now in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2018 (5) All M.R. 975, wherein it is held that appellants have only to establish that they belong to community mentioned at Serial No.44 Part IX of Second PAGE 3 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt Schedule of Amendment Act. It is further observed that the aspect of area restrictions is wholly irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish that they belong to community. He submitted that in view of that the aspect of area restrictions is no more in existence and therefore, on that ground, the invalidation by the Committee is erroneous. He further submitted that now the aspect of the affinity test is also well settled and in various decisions, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the affinity test cannot be conclusive either way and it is not a litmus test. Therefore, both the reasons mentioned by the Committee are not sufficient to invalidate the caste claim and therefore, the order passed by the Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. (8) Per contra, learned AGP strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted the validity certificate of Sudhakar Rambhau Dhadse, who is not shown in the family tree, however, the petitioner relied upon this validity certificate. She also submitted that the Committee has considered the area restrictions as well as affinity test and therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the said order. In view of that, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. PAGE 4 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt (9) On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that there is no dispute that the forefathers of the present petitioner namely, Kanha, Dinu, who is great-great-grandfather of the present petitioner is recorded as ‘Mana’ during the pre- Constitutional era i.e. in the year 1918-19. The family tree on which the petitioner relied upon is reproduced as under: (10) The above family tree shows that Kanha, Deena is the great great grandfather of the present petitioner. The record at page No. 57 shows that Kanha Tukaram Vald Deenu was recorded, recorded as a ‘Mana’ in the revenue records. The Vigilance Officer has also verified the said entry while conducting the vigilance. The Vigilance report shows that Kanha Tukaram, the great-great- grandfather of the present petitioner and Kisna Kanha, the great- grandfather of the present petitioner as well as Maroti Ragho and Bapurao Ragho, his cousin grandfathers, consistently recorded as PAGE 5 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt ‘Mana’. As it is a well settled position that the documents which are of a pre-Independence era, which certifies that the present petitioner’s great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, great cousin grandfather and grandfather belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. While dealing with the documentary evidence greater reliance requires to 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) On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the invalidation by the Committee, which is only on the ground of area restrictions. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the appellants have only to establish that he belongs to the said community. The aspect of area restrictions is now wholly irrelevant. Therefore, the observation of the Committee regarding the area restriction is erroneous and liable to be rejected. (12) As far as the affinity test is concerned, this aspect is now considered in various judgment and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the PAGE 6 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in AIR 2025 SC 3746 by referring the judgment of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors., MANU/SC/1316/2011, observed that 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 the migrations, modernization 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. PAGE 7 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt (13) In the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415, wherein also disrespect is reiterated and held 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. (14) The Committee has also not considered there is already validity granted to the cousin uncle of the present petitioner namely Sunil Bapurao Gharat, in view of order of Supreme Court in Civil Application No.5270/2004. In view of the decision of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur and Ors., reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, where tribe claim of a person has been scrutinized and accepted and are Committee has given a finding about validity of his tribe, another Committee ought not to refuse the same status to his/her blood relatives, who apply subsequently. PAGE 8 OF 9 6.wp5600.2022jud.odt (15) In view of the matter, we are of considered opinion that the order of Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim only on the area restrictions and affinity test is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is hereby declared belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. (iii) The respondent – Committee is hereby directed to issue the validity certificate to the present petitioner, declaring him as a ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (16) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) Prity PAGE 9 OF 9 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 15:30:23