JUDGMENT :

M.S. Jawalkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at the request and consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Mana’ community which is declared as Scheduled Tribe and listed under Sr. No. 18 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, in relation to the State of Maharashtra under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2000 [Act No. 10 of 2003]. The petitioner applied for Mana Scheduled Tribe Certificate to the respondent i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha. Accordingly, certificate was issued to the petitioner on 27/06/2012. She was pursuing B.A.M.S. four years degree course in Scheduled Tribe category. During her admission, claim was pending before the respondent no.1 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Scrutiny Committee”). On 11/09/2012 Scrutiny Committee delivered the Vigilance Cell report to the petitioner. The petitioner filed her reply to the said report on 11/02/2014. After interview, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioner’s claim of ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The said order invalidating her claim is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. It is pointed out that her father and cousin brother are having validity certificate, showing them belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner placed on record, apart from these validity certificates, two documents which are prior to 1950. There is no dispute about family tree and relation of the petitioner with the members shown in the family tree. Two documents are extract of birth register dated 23/07/1928 in respect of Dhondba Mana who is great grandfather showing his caste as ‘Mana’. Another is sale-deed of year 1920 wherein Bagaji Mana great great grandfather is shown belonging to Mana. Apart from these two documents there are consistent entries in school leaving certificate and admit cancel register in respect of Moreshwar Marotrao Sawasakade of the year 1967 showing his caste as ‘Mana’. Inspite of these documents on record, the Scrutiny Committee without application of mind invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner drawn our attention to the Police Vigilance Report, wherein the document i.e. sale-deed executed in the year 1920, was verified by Cell and gave remark that the said copy is verified and entries are correct. However, Scrutiny Committee recorded adverse finding without verifying the contents of report of Vigilance Cell. So far as birth extract of 1928, it is observed by Scrutiny Committee that the register was not available with Tahasildar Dewali as per report of Vigilance Cell. However, it failed to appreciate that the remark in the said report was that register is in mutilated condition. It was not the case that record was not available. Nowhere it is observed that any fraudulent attempt were made to obtain such certificate.

3. So far as entries ‘Mana’, ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’ are concerned this Court has already decided it in the matter Gitesh S/o. Narendra Ghormare vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others reported in 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 933. So far as the document in relation to Maroti Dhondba is in respect of grandfather of petitioner. It can be seen that the said entry taken from admit cancel register, page no. 983 wherein, the caste is shown as ‘Kunbi’, which is apparently incorrect. When father of Maroti i.e. Dhondba, the extract of birth register dated 23/07/1928 shows ‘Mana’, entry in respect of Maroti’s caste is also required to be treated as ‘Mana’ and cannot be a ‘Kunbi’. In view of adverse finding by the Scrutiny Committee, it is claimed that the order invalidating caste ‘Mana’ be declared illegal and be set aside. So far as affinity test is concerned, as held in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, there is no substance in the said application of test of affinity, specifically when olde