JUDGMENT :

R.K. Deshpande, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The claim of the petitioner for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry in the cluster of tribes at Serial No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 has been invalidated by the respondent No.1Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur by its order dated 2-7-2019, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The Committee has recorded the finding that in the school admission register, there is an entry of 'Mana', made in the name of Madhukar Sampat Sandekar, the grandfather of the petitioner, on 10-3-1950. On the basis of the police vigilance cell report, the finding is recorded that there is tampering in respect of the name and caste in the entry. The name 'Fagu' is scored out and 'Madhukar' is written and entry 'Kunbi' is scored out and 'Mana' is written. The Committee holds that the petitioner has not produced any document showing the caste 'Mana' in relation to any of his blood relatives prior to 1950 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It is also the finding recorded that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity test.

3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the original record of the Scrutiny Committee, which was called for. We have gone through the order impugned in the petition. The petitioner produced 21 documents before the Scrutiny Committee showing his caste or of his of his blood relatives as 'Mana' in the school, municipal or revenue records during the year 1980 to 2018. Except one document of 10-3-1950, which is the school admission register in the name of Madhukar Sanpat Sandekar, the grandfather of the petitioner, all the documents produced are subsequent to 1950.

4. The police vigilance cell report dated 31-5-2019 in respect of entry of 10-3-1950 merely shows that the name 'Fagu' is scored out and 'Madhukar' is written and the caste 'Kunbi' is scored out and 'Mana' is written. It is not the finding recorded by the Committee or even by the police vigilance cell in its report that the petitioner or his blood relatives were instrumental in tampering with the school record. Merely because entry is scored out and corrected in different ink and handwriting is not enough to draw an inference that it is done by the petitioner or his blood relatives. It may be a case of genuine correction. It is difficult to have access to the school admission register, in possession of the school authorities. We do not find that there is any statement of school authorities recorded to raise any doubt in respect of this entry. There is no material on record available to show that the petitioner or any of his blood relatives were instrumental in scoring and writing in the register. We have to read the entry as it is, which indicates the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, Madhukar Sampat Sandekar, showing that he belongs to 'Mana', which is a Scheduled Tribe. We, therefore, hold that the Committee was in error to disbelieve such entry.

5. There is not even a single entry produced on record indicating the caste of the petitioner or any of his blood relatives other than 'Mana'. Even if we read that entry as 'Kunbi', the other entries subsequent to 1950 cannot be totally ignored. The total effect is that on the basis of the documentary evidence, the petitioner has established his case for 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.

6. So far as the affinity test is concerned, in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2011(6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919, it is held that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higher degree or probative value. It further holds that in the event of doubt on the credibility of a document, its ver