COMMON JUDGMENT [Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Both these petitions are taken together as there is a common order passed by the Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short, respondent-committee). Furthermore, petitioner Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare in Writ Petition No.4237/2022 is the father of the petitioner Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare in Writ Petition No.4240/2022. The documents relied by both the petitioners before the committee are also identical.

3. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, by which the respondent committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners as ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. It is the submission of the petitioners that both belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe category and obtained the caste certificates in that regard from the competent authority at the relevant time.

4. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4237/2022 working as a ‘Multipurpose Worker’ in the Health Department and was appointed from Scheduled Tribe category on 01.10.1992. His proposal was forwarded to the scrutiny committee on 02.12.2017.

5. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4240/2022 pursuing her final year B.Sc. course and her proposal was forwarded to the scrutiny committee on 23.06.2016.

6. It is the submission of the petitioners that while forwarding the proposal to the caste scrutiny committee, they have categorically stated that there is no caste validity in their family. Petitioner namely, Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare is the first person who claimed the caste ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

7. The petitioners have submitted the family tree along with their caste claim to the caste scrutiny committee which is not disputed in the matter. According to the family tree, in the family of the petitioners, one Shri Fakiraya is the grandfather of Dnyaneshwar and great grandfather of Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare. The said genealogical tree is reproduced as under :

8. The petitioners, to substantiate their caste claim, have mainly relied upon the kotwal book entry in the name of grandfather/great grandfather namely, ‘Fakiraya Mana’ which is recorded on 13.06.1932. As such, on the basis of this oldest entry, the petitioners claimed that they belong to caste ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

9. It is also submitted by the petitioners that after forwarding their caste claim to the respondent-committee, first vigilance cell report was prepared in the matter on 02.05.2019. According to the said vigilance cell report, the entry of year 1932 in the name of Fakiraya Mana was verified and found to be correct entry. It is further stated by the petitioners that vigilance cell, during their enquiry, prepared the family tree and same is found to be resembling with the family tree prepared by the petitioners.

10. According to the petitioners, there is no dispute about the oldest documents which they have relied upon and relation of petitioners with grandfather/great grandfather namely ‘Fakiraya’. It is further pointed out by the petitioners that without any justified reasons, the respondent-committee directed the vigilance cell to conduct re-enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the vigilance cell conducted re-enquiry into the matter and submitted its report on 24.02.2020.

11. According to petitioners, in re-enquiry, vigilance cell recorded in their report that entry in the name of Fakiraya of the year 1932 cannot be relied upon, because the same is found in another case of one Ku. Janvhi Narayan Gharat. As such, on that count, the old entry of 1932 was discarded by the vigilance cell.

12. The respondent-committee, who was expected to record any reason on the oldest documents relied by petitioners, relied upon subsequent entry in the family of the petitioners wherein caste of the family members was recorded as ‘Mani & Mani-Kunbi’. As such, relying on the said entry, the claim