JUDGMENT :

(Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

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

2. The order dated March 16, 2022 impugned in this writ petition is passed by the respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short, ‘the Committee’) thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe and was accordingly issued a certificate to that effect by the Sub-Divisional Officer on August 11, 2016.

4. Since the petitioner was desirous of pursuing higher education, she sought admission in Principal S.T. Kapadia Junior College, Amravati on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe Category. Her tribe claim was forwarded for verification to the respondent no.2-Committee. In support of her claim, the petitioner had relied on the documents which are as old as 1932 onwards. The petitioner claimed that since the documents pertaining to pre-Constitutional era have more probative value, her tribe claim is entitled to be validated.

5. Since the Committee was not satisfied with the documents placed on record by the petitioner in view of the entries of ‘Telugu Mannewar’ with regard to her father and grandfather, ‘Manyawar’ with regard to her cousin grandfather and ‘Mannewar’ with regard to her great-grandfather, her case was referred to the Vigilance Cell pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules 2003.

The Vigilance Cell thereafter collected the documents in relation to her cousin grandfather, grandfather, cousin uncle, father and uncle wherein different entries were incorporated.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated May 05, 2019 by the Committee calling upon her to explain the aforesaid adverse entries. The petitioner submitted her explanation and appeared before the Committee for hearing.

7. The Committee after considering the submissions made by the petitioner evaluated the documentary material placed on record and vide impugned order rejected the claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe.

8. Shri G.G. Mishra, 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 would invite our attention to the oldest entries of 1932 in relation to Lachhanna Bhumaiyya – cousin grandfather and of 1934 in relation to Narsaiyya Bhumaiyya – great-grandfather of the petitioner, which find place in the school leaving certificate, birth certificate and other documents. He would claim that the aforesaid documents are not disputed by the Committee. He would further claim that Telugu is a language and not a caste and that being so, the Committee erred in recording a finding by relying upon ‘Telugu Mannewar’ entry. In addition, he would claim that ‘Telugu Manyawar’ is also illegally relied upon by the Committee as tribe entry so as to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. According to him, there is no caste by name Manyawar. In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has drawn support from the judgments of this Court in Anil Ramdas Mede Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2004(4) ALL MR 639] and Suresh Kumar Balkrishna Naidu Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another [2020(3) ALL MR 518]. According to him, it can be inferred from the aforesaid judgments that there is no caste by name Telugu. In addition, he has relied upon the aforesaid judgments for justifying the importance of probative value of the old documents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further urge that the applicability and non-satisfaction of the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test in the case in hand and once the documentary evidence supports the claim of the applicant, the C