JUDGMENT :

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.)

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

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21-03-2018 passed by respondent no.2- Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims (for short- 'the Scrutiny Committee'), whereby invalidated the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe').

3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). On 05-01-1990, the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Wardha, issued a caste certificate in her favour, recognizing her as 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Based on the said caste certificate, the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of 'Peon'.

4. On 30-07-2013, respondent no.4 forwarded the caste certificate of the petitioner for verification to the respondent no.2 Committee along with the proposal. The petitioner has also submitted the documents before the respondent No. 2 Committee in this regard.

5. The respondent no.2 Committee was of the view that the petitioner's claim is doubtful, hence, the same was forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell has conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee on 13-02-2017. In the report, it is observed, that the documents before 1950 depict the caste of the ancestors of the petitioner as 'Telanga' and 'Telangu' which are inconsistent with other entries. The Committee after considering the Vigilance Cell report and documents on record, passed the impugned order thereby negating the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. It is pertinent to note that on 14-03-2024 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, he sought time to place on record the relevant documents. As such, the Court has passed a detailed order in that regard and granted time to place relevant documents on record, by way of last chance. The said order thus reads as under :-

"Heard.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe has been invalidated by the respondent no.2-Committee vide order dated 21/03/2018. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2023 (Ku. Gauri d/o Vinay Palliwar vs. State of Maharashtra and others) on 09.08.2023 and submitted that whilst determining the claim of the petitioner (Gauri) therein, this Court has considered the document i.e. School Leaving Certificate of her father and granted validity in favour of her. On that basis, he would claim that the petitioner is entitled to a grant of validity certificate.

4. When confronted Mr. Mishra about the entries Telanga 1941 and Telugu 1948, he failed to satisfy the Court on the said entries. So also, he failed to show as to how Gauri and Vinay are related to the petitioner since he has not produced any document on record about their relationship. Even in the family tree produced on record does not disclose the names of Vinay and Gauri.

However, he seeks time to produce the relevant documents on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that before the Committee the petitioner has not produced the documents of the year 1944 on which the Court has placed reliance in Gauri's case (supra). He further submitted that in the case of Ku. Gauri Vinay Palliwar (supra), the aspect of the entry 'Telanga and Telangu' has not been dealt with.

6. It is seen from the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 that Telanga and Telangu entry falls into Nomadic Tribes and not under the Scheduled Tribes. The documents placed on record are of the post-constitutional era and not of a pre-constitutional era on which the petitioner sought to rely.

7. The learned counsel would further urge that by filing Ci