1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 4636 OF 2007 Omprakash Deorao Dharne, aged about 28 years, r/o Dehankar Layout, Near Renuka Mangal Karyalaya, Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER Versus 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Irwin Chowk, Amravati. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 29, 2009. ORDER : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) The petitioner is challenging the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 4.8.2007 whereby his Caste Claim as 2 belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated. 2. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri learned Puranik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee and nobody has appeared for respondent No.2 – Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, though it is served. 3. The petitioner has sought interim relief of his appointment as Peon with that Zilla Parishad provisionally during the pendency of writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that as the petitioner has produced old documents of his blood relatives which mention caste “Mana”, Respondent No. 1 could not have invalidated his caste claim. It is further contended that the reliance upon certificates of maternal uncle showing his caste as “Mani” is misplaced. It is also argued that the opinion of Research Officer is biased and does not consider the correct anthropological or ethological traits. The verification of those traits or customs ought to have been confirmed from 3 more elders in the family. The conclusion that there is no affinity between caste of present petitioner and Mana Scheduled Tribe is unsustainable. The moment it is shown that caste Mana is recorded in the caste certificate of relatives in old documents, there is no scope to apply affinity test. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of M.A.J. Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513, and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shilpa vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. 4. Shri Puranik, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that the verification has been done as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at AIR 1995 SC 94 and there is no complaint of breach of principles of natural principle. The judgment of Full Bench mentioned above, clearly covers the controversy against the petitioner. He has taken us through the orders of Scrutiny Committee with prayer to dismiss writ petition. 4 5. M.A.J. Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) is the Division Bench judgment of this Court which holds that “Mana” in Maharashtra are entitled to be treated as Scheduled Tribe through out the State and decision of State Government accepting Gond Mana’s only as Scheduled Tribe under Entry No. 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, is bad. The aspect has been considered further by Full Bench judgment mentioned above where controversy in relation to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe was involved. The Full Bench has found that the affinity test needs to be applied and by referring to the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported at 2006 (3) Mh.L.J. (SC) 407 and two other judgments i.e. Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi vs. State of Kerala, reported at (1994) 1 SCC 359 and State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors., reported at 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 1, it has been found that these judgments do not prohibit an enquiry in to the question as to whether claimant in fact belongs to Scheduled Tribe or not. The Full Bench has held that such an enquiry is a 5 basic postulate, before the benefit of reservation can be granted to such claimant who claims to belong to Scheduled Tribe. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raju Vasave vs. Mahesh Deoras Bhivapurkar, reported at 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1, is also relied upon to note that before a person can obtain a declaration that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe, he must be a member of Tribe. In para 30, the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr., reported at 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. (SC) 250, is relied upon to note that there Scrutiny Committee had opined that the respondent – Ravi Prakash did not belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe and he belonged to Chhatriya Thakur caste and his Scheduled Tribe certificate was cancelled. The Division Bench of this Court had held that Scrutiny Committee had no competence to go into the question of holding an enquiry whether he belongs to Thakur caste of Chhatriya category. Two separate judgments were written by Judges constituting Division Bench and Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of High Court that no enquiry was permissible at all and observations of High Court 6 were contrary to its judgments and also fall short of ground realities. The judgment in the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samiti vs. State of Kerala, (supra) and State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. (supra) were cited before the Supreme Court to urge that an enquiry into tribal status of Ravi Prakash was prohibited but the Hon’ble Apex Court did not accept it. Thus, it is settled that merely because certificates show particular tribe, enquiry into the status of claimant as belonging to Scheduled Tribe is not prohibited. 6. As pointed out to us rightly by Shri Puranik, learned counsel, the petitioner never urged that he was not given proper opportunity or statement of particular person or relative which he wanted to record was not allowed to be recorded. The perusal of Police Vigilance Cell Report shows that various documents tendered by the petitioner were looked into and those documents reveal that the caste mentioned was “Mana”. However, the question was whether it was Mana Scheduled Tribe or not. The Vigilance Cell report in enquiry found that 7 caste of maternal uncle of the petitioner was recorded as Mana Kunbi while caste of his other maternal uncle was recorded as “Mani”. Even the caste of the petitioner’s father at the time of his admission in the School was found to be mentioned as “Mani”. The statement of the petitioner’s father and his maternal uncle Pralhad were recorded. The customs and traits were disclosed by father and it is not the case of the petitioner that those have not been correctly recorded. He also disclosed that he and all his relatives have been married within the caste and there are no inter caste marriages. The Research Officer has opined that the customs and traditions disclosed were not tallying with Scheduled Tribe. 7. This report of Vigilance Report was duly served upon the petitioner and Scrutiny Committee has given him necessary opportunity. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the same. In the said reply, he has disclosed that in Kotwal book, caste of elder brother of his father and elder sister of his father was recorded as Mana and hence his father also was Mana and 8 mention of caste Mani was incorrect. In relation to his two maternal uncles, again he disclosed that there was one more maternal uncle elder in age than those two and his caste was recorded as Mana and hence mention of caste as Mani against other two maternal uncles was an obvious error. 8. The Scrutiny Committee has considered all this material and found that in view of the entry as “Mana – Kunbi” or “Mani”, the petitioner belonged to Kunbi caste which is OBC and not Mana Scheduled Tribe. It considered the other material which has been brought on record and also other documents and found that the petitioner could not establish affinity with Mana Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has not pointed out to us any other anthropological or ethological traits and has not urged that those customs or traits were relevant and have not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has applied its mind to the material which has come on record. It found that there were documents which revealed that the petitioner did not belong to Mana Scheduled Tribe and in 9 addition affinity test was also not being satisfied. It, therefore, proceeded to invalidate his caste claim. 9. In view of this position, we do not find any error in the order of Scrutiny Committee to enable us to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE ******* *GS.