JUDGMENT :

S.G. Mehare, J.

1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents waives service.

Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties heard finally.

2. Petitioner’s claim of “Mannerwarlu”-Scheduled Tribe based on the blood relations has been rejected by respondent no.2, by its order dated 18.2.2022. Hence, she approached this Court.

3. The petitioner is pursuing NEET-UG-2021. The Government of Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell has published a notice dated 7.3.2022 of second selection list for State quota seats of M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for academic year 2021-22. The petitioner has been selected for B.D.S., however, she has to submit her tribe validity certificate today by 5.00 p.m.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2 committed error of law ignoring the caste validity of the blood relations of the petitioner. The certificate of blood relations are yet not cancelled. The law is well settled that once the tribe validity is granted to the blood relative, it is unjust to invalidate the claim of the descendants. Respondent no.2 has erred in not considering this settled position of law and abruptly recorded a finding that the tribe validity of a blood relative was obtained by suppressing the facts from the Committee. He also added that the allegation of adding word “lu” at the last of the caste of the petitioner was not under her control. The said documents were not in the custody of the petitioner nor her family members. The petitioner has explained that the so called interpolation by adding word “lu” is not done by her and she is not aware who has added the word “lu”. The Vigilance Committee never suspected the petitioner. However, respondent no.2, on surmises, blamed the petitioner for alleged interpolation. The tribe entries of her cousin uncle dated 25.9.1989 and 9.7.1984 are the natural entries. These are also the old entries. However, respondent no.2 has ignored this natural evidence. He also argued that the affinity test is not the litmus test to determine the tribe validity. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & Ors. 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. He also relied on case of Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 268. He lastly argued that the impugned order is without application of mind and the settled law. Hence, petition may be allowed.

5. The learned A.G.P. strongly opposed the petition contending that the tribe validity certificates of the blood relatives have been obtained by suppressing the fact and without Vigilance Inquiry. Prima facie it is evident from the record that the word “lu” was added at the end of their caste. The petitioner and her relatives were well aware of such interpolation.

6. The explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Show cause notices to her blood relatives having tribe validity have already been issued. The documents relied upon by the petitioners are suspicious, hence, the impugned order is legal and correct.

7. The law relating to the probative value of caste validity of blood relative is settled. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8341 of 2021 & 4996 of 2021, decided on 20.10.2021 and 13.12.2021, respectively, has observed in paragraph 5 in Writ Petition No.8341 of 2021 as under:-

“5. Once this Court has granted validity to real sister and brother of the petitioner and the real uncle of the petitioner no.1, it was unjust on the part of the respondent Committee to invalidate. All the petitioners are paternal relatives of each other. The respondent Committee could not have taken a different view and sat over the judgment of this Court.”

8. This Court has taken a view in catena of judgments that unless the caste validity of blood relative based on which the validity claims are cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, such validity certificate cannot be ignored while considering the validity claim of other relatives. In ot