JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Considering the urgency in the matter, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission and by consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by invalidation of his Tribe Claim of belonging to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe made by the order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Respondent No. 1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee and also the termination order issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 06.09.2021.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner Ms P.D. Rane and Ms N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner claims to belong “Mana” Schedule Tribe at Entry Serial No. 18 in the Constitution (Schedule Tribe) Order 1950, has been invalidated by Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashipura, Amravati (for brevity referred as ‘Committee’) vide order dated 09.08.2021. Learned counsel Ms P.D. Rane further submits that the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Professor from Schedule Tribe Category. The petitioner submitted proposal of verification of the caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee in 2013. The petitioner submitted his proposal along with extracts:

(a) Extract of Dakhal Khariz of petitioner’s father of the year 1958.

(b) Extract of school leaving of father of the year 1958.

(c) Extract of birth of son born to petitioner’s great grandfather namely Sirpat dated 15th December, 1917.

(d) Extract of school leaving certificate of uncle Kailash, of 7th Standard and other documents.

Apart from these documents, various documents collected by Vigilance Cell were also placed before Committee. There are many documents of pre-independence period. As per report of Vigilance Cell in documents procured in connection with petitioners father, grand father and cousin relations of his father and great grandfather were indicating their social status as belonging to “Mana, Mani, Mane Kunbi.” However, entry in birth record which is oldest document reflects that a child born to Sirpat. His caste shown as Mana. The said document is of 15th December, 1917 the oldest one.

6. It is contended that the Police Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and submitted its report dated 02nd April 2014. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said report and clarified in the said reply that how the adverse entries of “Mane Kunbi, Mani Kunbi, Mane and Mani” appearing in the said documents. However, in the oldest document of 1917, the entry of ‘Mana’ Schedule Tribe is clearly mentioned. The oldest document submitted by the petitioner is dated 15.12.1917 in respect of the great grandfather namely Sirpat, who is in blood relation and his name also exists in the family tree which is not in dispute. The said document being a document prior to 1950 is having greater probative value in the eye of law. That being the oldest document, the Vigilance Officer as well as the committee ought to have considered that document while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. The said document was also procured by the Vigilance Officer during the vigilance inquiry.

The Scrutiny Committee gave unnecessary importance to those document in respect of their relative, Sheshrao and Ganesh, in which there is no date mentioned and remark column is also blank. All other documents are subsequent to 1917 document.

7. It is further submitted that the vigilance officer so also the Scrutiny Committee arrived at the conclusion that the caste, custom and tradition followed by the petitioner and her family member does not resemble with that of “Mana Schedule Tribe.” The petitioner’s contention is that if the document submitted by the petitioner clearly reveals the entry as ‘Mana’ then in that case affinity test should not be given much weightage, as there are no rules or any code to test the affinity as regards Mana Scheduled Tribe. There is no infrastructure available with the committee and the order passe