JUDGMENT :

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order dated 07-11-2022 passed in Case ID No. 5/510/Edu/ 122021/ 194771 by the respondent no.-1 Vice President & Member-Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short-'the Scrutiny Committee'), thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe category, has preferred this petition.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that he belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe which is listed at Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. On 07-10-2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kelapur, District Yavatmal, issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner that he belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.

4. Since the petitioner was desirous to make his educational career in professional education i.e. Engineering Course. On 08-03-2022, he submitted his tribe claim to respondent no. 1- The Scrutiny Committee along with documents for verification. In support of his claim, the petitioner has relied upon documents that are as old as of the years 1917 and 1937 and other documents. He claimed that since the documents pertaining to the pre-constitutional era have more probationer value, his Scheduled Tribe claim is entitled to be validated.

5. The Scrutiny Committee pursuant to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Scheduled Tribe (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003 referred the petitioner's case to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry into the Tribe’s claim of the petitioner.

6. The Vigilance Cell thereafter collected the documents in relation to the School and Tahsil Record of Petitioner’s great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather and submitted its report with the Committee observing that the petitioner failed to produce the documents on record to substantiate the fact that Aadku @ Aako is one and the same person.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee calling upon him to explain the aforesaid discrepancy. The petitioner appeared through his father before the Scrutiny Committee for a hearing.

8. The Scrutiny Committee after considering the submissions made by the petitioner evaluated the material placed on record and vide impugned order invalidated the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer for quashing the impugned order and in furtherance thereto, for issuance of the validity certificate has invited our attention to the oldest entries of the Kotwal book and birth register of the years 1917 and 1937 in relation to the great-great-grandfather and great-grandfather respectively of the petitioner, which find place in the Birth Register of the Tahsil Office and other documents. He further argued that the aforesaid documents are not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Cell, but they only observed that except for the aforesaid documents no other material was produced on record to substantiate that Aadku @ Ako is one and the same person. Therefore, he submitted that respondent no.-1-Scrutiny Committee has erred in relying on the entries that appeared on the first page of the service book of the father of the petitioner regarding Other Backward Class caste and another entry about 'Mana Kunbi' by discarding the other documents on record. According to him, there is no caste by the name 'Mana Kunbi'. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn support from the judgments of this Court in (Anil Ramdas Medhe vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2004(4) ALL MR 639), Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported