IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof under Section 8 of the Act of 2000 requires the petitioner to disprove adverse historical entries to establish her Scheduled Tribe status.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel, appearing for the parties.

2. The challenge is raised to the order dated 28/08/2023 passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’), thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe.

3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe. On 01/06/2022, Sub-Divisional Officer Katol issued a caste certificate in her favour. She was pursuing a B. Tech education against the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. On 15/09/2022, the Committee received the petitioner caste certificate and the documents through the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ajni, Nagpur. Since the Committee was of the view that the petitioner’s claim was doubtful, the documents submitted by her were forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The Vigilance Cell thoroughly enquired and submitted its report to the Committee on 13/07/2023. During the enquiry, some adverse entries were found against the petitioner’s claim. The Committee vide show-cause notice dated 26/07/2023 called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation of the said adverse entries. In response, she submitted an explanation before the Committee on 10/08/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father and cousin’s grandfather appeared before the Committee for a hearing. After affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and her father, considering the Vigilance Cell report and the documents on record, the respondent Committee vide impugned order dated 28/08/2023 rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

4. Ms. Rashi Nagrare, learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the petitioner has produced documents from 1903 to 1988 of which genuineness, authenticity and existence of those documents neither denied nor has it been found that those documents are bogus or fabricated. Out of them, some documents are from the pre-constitutional era, wherein “Mana” entries have been recorded. The Committee discarded those entries but gave undue importance to other documents and rejected the claim. In fact, other entries, such as “Mani, Bhormani, Mane and Mani Kunbi”, mentioned in the pre-Constitutional era documents, are also included in the “Mana” schedule Tribe. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the Committee is illegal and liable to be set aside.

5. In order to substantiate her contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2023) 9 SCR 1261 and canvassed that in view of the observations in the aforesaid judgment “Mani, Bhormani, Mane and Mani Kunbi” has to be read as “Mana” Schedule Tribe. Perhaps these entries might have been wrongly inserted or incorrectly written. Hence, she submitted that the said judgment squarely covers the petitioner’s case.

6. Apart from above, the petitioner propounded that the Committee has granted a validity certificate in favour of her father (Govinda) and cousin uncle (Pramod); therefore, as per the law laid down in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others, 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401, she is also entitled to get validity certificate. Accordingly, she submitted that the rejection of her claim by the respondent Committee is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, as well as this Court, as referred to above. Hence, she has urged for allowing the petition.

7. While countering the above submissions, Mr. Thakre learned Addi. Govt. Pleader has vehemently argued that during the Vigilance Cell enquiry, the Vigilance Cell discovered adverse entries from 1903 to 1959 pertaining to great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, grandfather and cousin grandfather wherein their caste have been reco