1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 799 OF 2008 (Kum. Minakshi Gulabrqao Narnaware vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 31, 2009. Heard finally Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Doifode, learned AGP for respondent No.3 . The petitioner’s caste claim as belonging to Mana, Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated because of two documents which record the caste of his great grand father and paternal aunt as Bhormani. According to the petitioner, it is incorrect recording and caste is Mana only. He has relied upon some old documents to contend that when caste has been recorded as Mana in those documents, its mention as Bhormani only in two documents cannot be the determinative of caste claim. In addition, he states that because of confusion then prevailing, the petitioner has not led any positive evidence to bring on record the affinity. 2 Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Scrutiny Committee, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Doifode, learned AGP for respondent No.3, are opposing the arguments. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel contends that in the oldest document, the caste has been recorded as Bhormani. The Scrutiny Committee has nowhere found that Mana and Bhormani are distinct tribes. Though Mrs. Deshpande is seeking time to demonstrate this aspect, in present circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter for that purpose. The petitioner could not lead positive evidence to bring on record affinity because of the confusion then prevailing and though Respondent No.1 is right in pointing out that after 31.10.2006, there was no such confusion, in present situation, we are inclined to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead positive evidence. In the situation, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 and restore the matter to the file of Respondent No.1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner. As the matter is old, the Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and in any case by 30th June 2010. The petitioner shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 1st October 2009 and shall abide by its further directions in 3 the matter. The petitioner has moved Civil Application No.1766 of 2009 for declaration of her result in First Year B.A.M.S. Examination conducted in May-June 2009. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that as there is strike going on in the college, he is not aware of the situation. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned above, we direct the College/ University to declare the result of the petitioner for said examination provisionally. The declaration of result shall be without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents and subject to the adjudication of her caste claim in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.