Vibha Kankanwadi, J
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 on 15th December 2021 in respect of the tribe claim of the petitioners. By the
said impugned order, the tribe claim made by the petitioners has been invalidated.
3. The petitioners are the relatives of each other. Petitioner No.1 is appointed as engineer by respondent No.3. Petitioner No.2 is appointed as Talathi
by respondent No.4. Petitioner No.3 is appointed as Gramsevak by respondent No.5 and petitioner No.5 has been appointed as MRI Technician by
respondent No.6. Their appointments are under the Scheduled Tribe category. They belong to Scheduled Tribe, “Mannerwarluâ€. The tribe claim
of the petitioners was sent for validation to the scrutiny committee. The petitioners had produced various documents to support their claim. The
research officer had conducted the inquiry and the vigilance report has been submitted. After the report was received, notice thereof was given to the
petitioners. Accordingly, they had raised objections. Hearing had taken place, however, respondent No.2 scrutiny committee rejected the tribe claim of
the petitioners. Hence the present Writ Petition.
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order of invalidation of tribe claim passed by respondent No.2 is patently
without application of mind. Respondent No.2 failed to take into consideration the documents which were produced by the petitioners and wrongly
held that the affinity test has not been proved by the petitioners. It appears that the approach of the committee is negative. The committee has failed
to consider the caste validation certificates issued to father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, and brother and sister of petitioner No.2. When the caste
validity certificate has been issued to a blood relative, then definitely that is binding. Rather, when it is proved through genealogy that person now
claiming validity is related to the person to whom validity certificate has been given, then the person now claiming validity is not required to go through
the said test. The vigilance report itself was not required. The decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, was not at all considered. The vigilance report at the time granting validation to those relatives of
the petitioners ought to have been considered by respondent No.2.
5. It has been further vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that tribe “Mannerwarlu†was forming part of the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. Copy of the Gazette of India dated 6th September 1950 has been produced. Learned
Advocate for the petitioners submitted that tribe “Mannerwarlu†was not forming part of the said list from erstwhile Bombay State. Thereafter
also, there was no change when the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 came into force with effect from 25th
September 1956. However, the said tribe came to be included by way of amendment of 18th September 1976 by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. As per the said amendment, the said tribe came to be included for the first time in the State of Maharashtra in
Part IX of the said Gazette in the First Schedule as entry No.27. Therefore, when the caste / tribe came to be recognized in the State of Maharashtra
as part of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for the first time after September 1976, then more importance ought to have been given by
respondent No.2 to those documents which were carrying the entry of the caste / tribe as “Mannerwarlu†prior to 1976. Nobody had
contemplated prior to 1976 that reservation would be given to those persons who are from “Mannerwarlu†tribe. Along with the claim, certain
documents have been produced of the relatives as well as father of three of the petitioners to show that they were “Mannerwarlu†by tribe.
Respondent No.2 committee has unnecessarily taken note of other documents. Even if we consider those documents which were considered by the
committee, though in some of documents the spelling differs and it is mentioned as Manerwarlu “ ( )“ and at some places as
Munerwarlu “( )“, the committee has not considered other documents wherein the tribe has been mentioned as
“Mannerwarlu†and wrongly held that the petitioners have failed in proving the affinity test and that they do not appear from the area where the
persons from “Mannerwarlu†tribe reside. In Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113
and Priya Pravin Parate vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180, it has been held that,
affinity test cannot be regarded as a litmus test and cannot be the sole criteria for rejecting the tribe claim. Further, in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs.
Divisiona Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 (supra), in Kum. Snehal D/o Sambhaji Admulwad vs. the State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition
No.12021 of 2018, decided on 23rd June 2022) and in Abhishek Mahendra Umbarje vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.5517 of
2022, decided on 23rd September 2022), this Court has held that the validity certificate issued in favour of blood relative is binding on another
committee unless it is obtained by fraud. In Anil S/o Shivram Bandawar vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and another,
2021(5) Mh.L.J. 345, Vishnu Rajaram Thakar vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Writ Petition No.647 of 2022, decided on 9th March 2022),
Sanjay Haribhjau Munnur vs. the State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.3223 of 2002, decided on 13th September 2017) and in Balaji S/o Gunaji
Chitale vs. the State of Maharashtra and another (Writ Petition No.2552 of 2019, decided on 8th September 2022), it is held that the scrutiny
committee does not have the power of review. Learned Advocate for the petitioners then pointed out that show cause notices have been issued to
those persons to whom earlier the validity certificates have been issued, as to why their validity should not be cancelled. It is submitted that when
entire procedure was followed and the certificates have been issued, now it cannot be negatived under the guise of review powers. Herein this case
the committee has not come to the conclusion that any record has been manipulated by the petitioners. As the impugned decision has been illegally
arrived at, it deserves to be set aside and the validity certificates need to be issued in favour of the petitioners.
6. Learned AGP appearing for the respondents submitted that initial burden is on the petitioners to prove that they belong to “Mannerwarlu†tribe.
The petitioners should not have suppressed any document. Herein this case the school record of some of the petitioners would show that their caste
has been stated as “Mannairwarluâ€. Further, the vigilance report does not show that the relatives of the petitioners had migrated from the original
place of residence of the tribes. Some of the school registers were not available in the school itself. If the entries in the school were wrong or showing
some different caste / tribe, then it ought to have been got corrected as provision to that effect exists in School Code. Later on, there cannot be
changes in the said record. The Full Bench of this Court in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2019(6) Mh.L.J. 769, held
that, an application for alteration in the entries in the General Register is permissible, with the previous permission of the appropriate authority at any
time when the pupil is attending the school. No application for alteration in the figure of date of birth is permissible after the student has left secondary
school, except correction in the nature of ‘obvious mistakes’ as indicated in Clause 26.3 i.e. of a nature where the date of a particular month
which does not exist in the calendar and likewise. Learned AGP also relied on the decision of this Court in Yogita Subhash Thakur vs. the State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.7988 of 2015 decided on 1st August 2017), wherein it is held that, when grand father’s school admission register of
petitioner carried entry of the caste as “Thakur†and her father’s record shown the entry in school as “Hindu Marathaâ€, then such
changes cannot be accepted and the writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. Learned AGP further submits
that in the present case even 7 X 12 extracts of the land of the father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 does not show any entry about the caste of the
family. The decision taken by the committee is perfectly correct and it does not require any kind of interference. If the said order is now set aside then
it would affect the notices which have been already issued to those relatives on whose validity certificates the petitioners are relying.
7. There is much substance in the say of the learned Advocate for the petitioners. It is to be noted that tribe by name “Mannerwarlu†was initially
recognized to be a Scheduled Tribe when the Gazette of India dated 6th September 1950 came into existence. However, later on it appears that in
1956 it got dropped. It appears that earlier inclusion of the said tribe was from Hyderabad State and then the said tribe came to be recognized as
Scheduled Tribe only in the year 1976. Definitely as regards the documents prior to 1976 are concerned, nobody could have had any dream that the
said tribe would be recognized as Scheduled Tribe in future. The record shows that before respondent No.2 committee there were four documents
which were of the years prior 1976. Those documents are at serial Nos. 20, 23, 30 and 95. One of the said documents i.e. document at serial No.20
relates to Premrao Kisanrao Sirsewad, who is father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, and the document is dated 25th September 1967 in respect of his
admission in the school. Thereafter there is another document at serial No.23 dated 25th July 1970, which relates to paternal aunt of petitioner Nos.1,
4 and 5, Mayabai Kisanrao Sirsewad, about admission in the school. One Shobha Dattarao Sirsewad is stated to be cousin paternal aunt and her
admission document is dated 16th June 1975. The caste certificate of Kisanrao Ganpati Sirsewad, who is grand father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, is
dated 5th May 1965. All these documents have been brushed aside by the committee on the ground that intentionally the caste has been written in
those documents as “Mannerwarluâ€. The committee has not gone into the aspect that the said tribe came to be recognized for the first time only
in the year 1976.
8. Another fact which has to be stated that at the time of verification of caste certificate of father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, vigilance was
conducted and the copy of the report has been produced. In the said vigilance everything was considered and further it is stated that one more relative
of said applicant, i.e. father of present petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5, was given validity certificate on 30th October 1982. The said relative is cousin
brother (maternal brother) - Subhash Vitthalrao Chahalwar. Even at that time, said Premrao Kisanrao Sirsewad had produced “Namuna No.3 â€
Pahni Patrak Ahwal†in the name of his father Kisanrao Ganpati Sirsewad and it was of the year 1951, in which his caste was mentioned as
“Mannerwarluâ€. Before the scrutiny committee, the genealogy was produced by the present petitioners and it was also stated that another relative
by name Balanand Bapurao Sirsewad, who appears to be the brother of petitioner No.3, had received the validity certificate. Said Balanand Bapurao
Sirsewad had then claimed that validity certificate has been issued to his relative, Rameshwar Sayanna Palepwad and it was issued by the same
committee, i.e. respondent No.2. Affidavits of Rameshwar Sayanna Palepwad and another relative Vyankati Maroti Made were attached, who were
given validity certificates by respondent No.2 committee itself.
9. Thus, it is to be noted that respondent No.2 has not conducted the inquiry in proper way. Other relatives, Satyanarayan Bapurao Sirsewad (brother
of petitioner No.3) and Sharmila Bapurao Sirsewad (sister of petitioner No.3) were also given validity certificates. The affidavit of petitioner No.5 â€
Arti D/o Premrao Sirsewad before the committee has given more clear picture, as to who were the other relatives to whom validity certificates have
been issued. When validity certificates have been issued to all these relatives of the petitioners by the same committee, unless there was some cogent
and conclusive evidence about fraud, the same committee could not have undertaken a review of its own decision. The impugned decision now
rendered, is totally against the rules and regulations and the decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisiona Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 (supra). When the validity certificates of the relatives were produced / disclosed, then there was absolutely no necessity for any affinity test.
10. The decision in Yogita Subhash Thakur vs. the State of Maharashtra (supra) will not be helpful to the respondents as the facts were different. In
the said case there was only one document which was oldest which petitioner therein was relying, so those observations have been made by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. Question of area restriction was also not the point involved. There was no necessity for the present petitioners to get any
school record corrected. All the inquiry was done at the behest of respondent No.2 itself. The impugned decision is rather in the form that respondent
No.2 was sitting in appeal over its own file and present committee is raising doubts over the earlier constituted committee, which is not permissible at
all.
11. In view of the fact that the order passed by respondent No.2 on 15th December 2021 is totally illegal, it needs to be set aside by allowing the Writ
Petition. Hence following order:-
ORDER
(I) Writ Petition stands allowed.
(II) The order passed by respondent No.2 â€" Scrutiny Committee on 15th December 2021 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners stands
quashed and set aside.
(III) Respondent No.2 â€" Scrutiny Committee is directed to forthwith issue certificates of validity in favour of the petitioners, certifying that they
belong to “Mannerwarluâ€, Scheduled Tribe.
(IV) Rule is made absolute in above terms.