Oral Judgment:

Nivedita P. Mehta, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, whereby her claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.

3. The petitioner is a student pursuing her education and is aspiring for employment under the Government. She was admitted to respondent No.3 – College against a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category for the academic year 2012–13. Consequently, her proposal for verification of her caste claim was forwarded to respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee. In support of her claim, the petitioner produced several documentary records pertaining to her blood relatives, wherein their caste has been recorded as "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for conducting a home, school and other requisite inquiries. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 17.01.2022, which was adverse to the petitioner. Thereafter, by a show-cause notice dated 28.01.2022, accompanied by a copy of the Vigilance Cell report, the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation. The petitioner duly appeared before the Committee and filed her reply. Upon considering the Vigilance Cell report, the petitioner's explanation and the material placed on record, the Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order, invalidated her caste claim.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's real brothers, namely Jitendra and Ravindra, have already been issued validity certificates certifying them to belong to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by the very same Scrutiny Committee. It is contended that the Committee, without assigning any cogent reason, discarded the evidentiary value of the validity certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's real brothers. He further submits that the petitioner had inadvertently placed on record a document of the year 1947 pertaining to one Sawji Paiku, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mani". According to the learned counsel, the said person is in no way related to the petitioner, and an affidavit to that effect has been filed before this Court. He fairly concedes that, owing to an inadvertent omission, this factual aspect was not specifically brought to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee while submitting the petitioner's explanation. Learned counsel further invites attention to the extract of the school admission register of the petitioner's paternal uncle, Namdeo Vithu Dharne, whose date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1944 and whose date of admission to school is 01.04.1952, wherein his caste is entered as "Mana". It is submitted that the said entry, being of the year 1952, is a document of the pre-1956 period, i.e., prior to the inclusion of the "Mana" caste in the list of Scheduled Tribes under the Presidential Order. Such a document, therefore, carries high probative value and ought not to have been discarded by the Scrutiny Committee. In support of these submissions, reliance is placed on the decision in Prachita Dhanraj Gharat and another v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, reported in 2025(5) Mh.L.J. 493, to contend that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned AGP supports the impugned order. She submits that the Vigilance Cell, upon conducting a detailed inquiry, reported that the affinity traits exhibited by the petitioner did not correspond with those of the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence pertaining to her blood relatives from the pre-Constitutional era. According to the learned AGP, the petitioner herself relied upon the extract of the Kotwal Panji of the year 1947 pertaining to Sawji Paiku, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mani". It is, therefore, contended that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to establish her claim of belonging to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, warranting no interference by this Court.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. At the outset, it is an admitted position that the petitioner's two real brothers have been granted validity certificates certifying them to belong to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by the very same Scrutiny Committee. In such circumstances, the primary question that arises for consideration is whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's caste claim without assigning any cogent or distinguishing reasons for departing from the validity certificates already issued in favour of her real brothers.

8. Once the caste claim of a close blood relative has been duly validated, the Committee is expected to maintain consistency while adjudicating the claim of another member of the same family, unless there exist exceptional circumstances or substantial distinguishing material justifying a different conclusion. In the absence of such reasons, rejection of the petitioner's claim would inevitably result in inconsistent findings regarding the caste status of members of the same family, thereby creating uncertainty and undermining the very object of the verification process. The principle of consistency in adjudication of caste claims founded upon a common genealogy has been recognised by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 Mh.L.J. Online (S.C.) 122, while relying upon its earlier decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785, has held that where the caste claim is supported by reliable pre-Constitutional documentary evidence, a reference to the Vigilance Cell may not be necessary. The Apex Court has further held that the affinity test cannot be treated as a litmus test for determining the genuineness of a Scheduled Tribe claim.

10. Similarly, in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 22, observed thus:

                   “22. It is manifest from the afore-extracted 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 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, 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 tribes' 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.”

11. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court leave no manner of doubt that the affinity test is only a corroborative tool and cannot constitute the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim. With the passage of time, migration, urbanisation and social advancement, members of Scheduled Tribes may no longer exhibit all the traditional traits and customs historically associated with their communities. Consequently, absence of complete affinity cannot override credible documentary evidence establishing the caste status of a claimant.

12. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the "Mana" caste came to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order in the year 1956. The petitioner has produced documentary evidence pertaining to her blood relatives, including the school admission register of the year 1952, wherein the caste is consistently recorded as "Mana". Such documents, being prior to the crucial date, possess greater probative value than subsequent entries. The Scrutiny Committee has failed to accord due weight to these documents and has instead placed undue reliance upon the affinity test. The Committee has also overlooked the fact that the petitioner's real brothers have already been granted validity certificates. In our considered view, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the documentary evidence on record and the settled legal principles governing adjudication of caste claims. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

13. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a validity certificate certifying her to belong to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, is directed to issue the caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Until such certificate is issued, the petitioner shall be entitled to rely upon this judgment wherever production of the caste validity certificate is required. The writ petition is allowed.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.