Post-constitutional documents showing consistent Scheduled Tribe caste cannot be discarded solely for lack of pre-constitutional evidence or date of birth variance; Scrutiny Committee must objectively appreciate all material including clarifying affidavits.

JUDGMENT :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner by this petition is challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for ‘Mana’ Schedule Tribe and canceling the caste certificate dated 26.07.2007 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha, so also seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 02.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation appointing the petitioner on supernumerary position.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Khapari, Taluka Samudrapur, District Wardha and belongs to ‘Mana’ community notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra under Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India at Sr. No.18. The petitioner was appointed as ‘S.T. Bus Conductor’ under respondent No.3 on 10.07.2013 in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1704/2016 seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the caste claim and protection of service. This Court vide order dated 15.04.2016 directed the respondent No.2 to decide within one year and protected the petitioner's service. On 21.06.2013, the proposal for verification was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2, along with pre-independence documentary evidence :

5. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct inquiry. The Vigilance Officer submitted adverse report dated 03.11.2018 wrongly applying affinity test and area restriction. Consequently, Respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 19.11.2018 to the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that after receipt of show-cause notice, the petitioner along with her father appeared before the respondent No.2 on 23.01.2019 and submitted that all documents showing caste as ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. At the time of hearing, the petitioner inadvertently stated that Laxman and Mahadev are the same person. However, Mahadev and Laxman are real brothers; Mahadev was the younger brother who expired at tender age, which fact was not properly explained before the Committee.

7. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and canceling the caste certificate. Thereafter, the State issued Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 declaring posts of Scheduled Tribe employees whose caste claims were invalidated as vacant and appointing them to supernumerary positions for 11 months. Despite service protection granted by this Court on 17.02.2020, respondent No.3, based on the impugned order dated 29.01.2019, appointed the petitioner on supernumerary position vide order dated 02.02.2022 by taking away her permanent post with effect from 06.02.2022 to 05.01.2023.

8. It is submitted that upon perusal of the impugned order, the petitioner realized the mistake regarding the relationship between Mahadev and Laxman. At the time of submitting caste claim proposal, the petitioner inadvertently shown in Family Tree affidavit that Laxman @ Mahadev is Grandfather, which created confusion at the time of hearing, resulting in the Committee disbelieving the pre-independence birth certificate of Mahadev.

9. The petitioner placed reliance on Prachita v. S.T.C. Scrutiny Committee , 2025 (5) Mh. L.J. 493; Vinayak Marotrao Mahajan Vs. Schedule Tribe Caste C