The credibility of caste claims must adhere to historical documentation, with greater weight given to pre-Independence records, in lieu of modern records.

JUDGMENT :

Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present petition challenges the common impugned order dated 16/08/2024, passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating their caste claim as “Mana Scheduled Tribe”.

4. The petitioners are from agriculturist family. The petitioner No.1 is pursuing her education and desires to take admission in MBBS Course, since she cleared NEET Examination with 365 marks. The petitioners claim that the Committee discharded 1935 Mana Record, which is related to the petitioners’ family. Committee also disbelieves 1951 Mana entry in the school record in respect of Bapurao Shravan, who is cousin grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioners state that Mani entries of the years 1957, 1961, 1964 and 1965 are determining entries, but the Committee recorded a finding that persons with mixed records such as Mane, Mani and Mana are non-scheduled tribes and the same is against law to treat the Mani entry as Mana.

5. The petitioners further aver that the Committee believes that real Mana scheduled tribe does not exist. The petitioners aver that the judgment in Mana Admi Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra , 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 513 of this Court, having reached finality, holds the field as far as Mana matters are concerned and after referring various Apex Court judgments, principle of law is laid down that one who is known in the society as a member of Mana Community, he/she cannot be denied the status of scheduled tribe. In this view of the matter, the petitioner aver that every lower authority including Scrutiny Committee are bound to follow the judgment and cannot take contrary view for whatsoever reason. Thereafter, before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioners refer the decision reported in Mana Admi Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra (supra), which held that the entry Mana of the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1976 on plain reading shows that Mana Community is declared as Scheduled Tribe Community throughout the Maharashtra by the enactment passed by the Parliament. Therefore, the action of the State classifying the caste of the petitioners as “Non-Scheduled Tribe Mana Community” or “SBC Community” is held illegal without authority.

6. The petitioners aver in the petition that the birth record of the year 1935 (Kotwal Book) pertains to village Girad, which mentioned the father’s name as “Shravan Mana” and female child’s name as “Mani”. According to the petitioners, daughter of Shravan namely Chindhabai bear the name “Mani” before naming ceremony. The petitioners further state that the Vigilance Cell took a stand by relying upon the statement of cousin grandfather “Chindhuji Narayan, aged 78 years that “Chindhabai” was never known as “Mani” and similar was the statement of Indubai, aged 73 years, who is the daughter of Chindhabai. According to the petitioners, as per school record, Indubai was born in 1957, which shows that her mother Chindhabai must have been naturally born not after 1939. According to the petitioners, Indubai and Chindhuji Narayan put their thumb impression on the statement and nobody witnessed the said statement. The petitioners aver that the Committee could not reject the birth record of 1935 as not related to the petitioners. The petitioner state that due to the arbitrary and perverse decision of the Committee, the educational career of the petitioners is in danger and they will be deprived of constitutional benefits meant for scheduled tribes. Hence, the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside the c