Z.A. HAQ, J.:

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste certificate of “Mana”, Scheduled Tribe.

4. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed an illegality in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner overlooking the fact that the Caste Validity Certificate of “Mana”-Scheduled Tribe is issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of the petitioner's father-Shamrao Zitru Nannaware, petitioner's real sister-Payal, petitioner's cousin brother-Nitin Bapurao Nannaware, petitioner's cousin sister-Shilpa Ramkrushna Nannaware and petitioner's cousin brother Umakant Ramkrushna Nannaware. The learned advocate has submitted that the document of 1918-1919 (sale deed) refers to the petitioner's grandfather Zitru as “Mana”. According to the learned advocate, the document is pre-constitution era and has more evidentiary value and it cannot be said that the petitioner's grandfather was shown as “Mana” to avail some benefit as at that time, no one could have expected or anticipated that the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 will be coming into existence.

5. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has submitted that the petitioner's ordinary place of residence does not fall in the area scheduled for “Mana” and the petitioner has failed to prove that before the area restrictions are removed, the ancestors of the petitioner's were residing in the area scheduled for “Mana” tribals. The submission as made on behalf of the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be accepted specifically in view of the fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued Caste Validity Certificates in favour of the father, real sister, cousin brother and cousin sister of the petitioner.

6. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the documents of 1918 submitted by the petitioner on the ground that it does not refer the caste as “Mana-Scheduled Tribe”. This approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has to be deprecated. No one could have referred “Mana” as Scheduled Tribe in 1918. Moreover, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is constituted to examine the caste claims of the tribals by properly appreciating the documents and to decide the caste claim of the candidates by properly considering the documents and entries in the documents. The facts on the record show that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is finding out ways and methods and is giving unacceptable reasons to invalidate the caste certificates of the tribals. Leave apart the fact that no one could have referred “Mana” as Scheduled Tribe in 1918, even now the claim of a candidate whose caste is recorded as “Mana” cannot be rejected on the ground that the entry should have been “Mana”-Scheduled Tribe.

7. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has refused to consider the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of the father and sister of the petitioner by making a general observation that it is not understood as to how those Caste Validity Certificates have been issued when their ordinary place of residence does not fall in the area scheduled for the “Mana” tribe. It is not the case of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the Caste Validity Certificates have been obtained by the father and sister of the petitioner relying on forged or fabricated documents or by misrepresentation of facts. In the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 : 2011 (2) BCR 824, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down as follows:

9. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment (employment), and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative