Jyoti D/O Vithoba Barekar (Sau. Jyoti W/O Prakash Baikawad) Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member Secy., S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Anr.

¶1

Judgment

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:11291-DB

¶3

1 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2138 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2096 OF 2022

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2138 OF 2022

¶7

Jyoti D/o Vithoba Barekar, (Sau. Jyoti W/o Prakash Gaikwad) Aged about 46 years, Occ.- Service, R/o. C/o. Manohar Bele, Barewadi, Near Hanuman Mandir, Chandrapur.

¶8

…. PETITIONER

¶9

// VERSUS //

¶10

1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati.

¶11

1. The Superintendent of Police , Chandrapur.

¶12

…. RESPONDENTS

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 2096 OF 2022

¶15

Lata D/o Vithoba Barekar (Sau. Lata Ramrao Dodke) Aged about 56 years, Occ.- Service, R/o. Sarkar Nagar, Near Flour Mill, Mul Road, Chandrapur

¶16

…. PETITIONER

¶17

// VERSUS //

¶18

2 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶19

Judgment

¶20

1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati.

¶21

1. The Joint Director of Industry, Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶22

…. RESPONDENTS

¶23

Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents/State.

¶24

CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

¶25

DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 29.09.2025. DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 17.10.2025.

¶26

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶27

Heard. Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶28

Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

¶29

As both the Petitioners are relative, both the Petitions are taken up to decide together by a common judgment.

¶30

Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.2138/2022 are as

¶31

under :

¶32

3 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶33

Judgment

¶34

The Petitioner – Jyoti D/o Vithoba Barekar, by this petition is challenging the order dated 17/01/2022, passed by the Respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short the “Scrutiny Committee”), thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 18 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitution (S.T.) Order 1950.

¶35

It is the contention of the Petitioner that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe category, to that effect, the Caste Certificate dated 11/01/2018 came to be issued by the Competent Authority to the Petitioner. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by Respondent No.2 employer, the Petitioner being qualified, applied for the post of “Women Police Constable” and came to be selected and appointed as per order dated 01/10/2001. It is further contended that the Petitioner had forwarded proposal from SBC ‘Mana” in the year 2006 for the reason that the appointment of the Petitioner was based on the caste certificate of SBC as at the relevant time ‘Mana’ was enlisted in SBC category and not in Scheduled Tribe category. The respondent employer has not forwarded the said proposal.

¶36

4 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶37

Judgment

¶38

Therefore, the Petitioner again in the year 2012 forwarded the proposal to the Scrutiny Committee but the same is returned by the Committee for the reason that ‘Mana’ now falls under the Scheduled Tribe category and not SBC category. Thereafter, the Petitioner forwarded the proposal through proper channel to the Scrutiny Committee with necessary documents on 17/06/2019. Among the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her caste claim, following are the documents belonging to pre-

¶39

independence period :

¶40

v-dz-	dkxni=kps Lo:i	dkxni=kojhy O;Drhps uko	tekr	fnukad	vtZnkj
1	lsok iqLrdkP;k ifgY;k ikukph Nk;kizr	foBksck rqG'khjke ckjsdj	ekuk	01-01-1941	oMhy
2	'kkGk cny.;kpk nk[kyk	foBksck rqG'khjke ckjsdj	ekuh	19-09-1949	oMhy
3	tUe uksan	jkoth Hkhok ekuk ;kauk ,d eqyxk ¼nRrq½ >kY;kph uksan	ekuk	08-06-1943	pqyr vktksck
4	tUe uksan	Ckkthjko ukxksth ;kauk ,d eqyxh ¼xhrh½ >kY;kph uksan	ekuk	21-04-1941

¶41

The Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry in relation to

¶42

the caste claim of the Petitioner and submitted it’s report to the Scrutiny Committee on 15/10/2020. The Petitioner filed reply to the said vigilance report on 23/11/2020 and submitted that he had submitted pre-constitutional documents in respect of her

¶43

5 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶44

Judgment

¶45

blood relatives, they have the greatest probative value in the eyes of law. The Vigilance Officer of the Scrutiny Committee has procured documents whereas the entries of ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’ and ‘Mana Ku.’ are found. As far as the entry of year 1949 in respect of one Shri Vithoba who is father of the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner submitted that the entry of ‘Mani’ is misnomer in the pronunciation. The Vigilance Officer relied upon entries of ‘Mani’, which were post constitutional period documents of the year 1953 and 1952.

¶46

It is further contended that the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 17/01/2022 invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner mainly on the ground of documentary evidence, affinity and area restriction, which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶47

Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.2096/2022 are as

¶48

under :

¶49

By this Petition, the Petitioner – Lata D/o Vithoba Barekar, is challenging the order dated 17/01/2022, passed by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating

¶50

6 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶51

Judgment

¶52

the caste claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 18 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitution (S.T.) Order 1950.

¶53

It is the contention of the Petitioner that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe category, to that effect, the Caste Certificate dated 01/02/1984 came to be issued by the Competent Authority to the Petitioner. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by Respondent No.2 employer, the Petitioner being qualified, applied for the post of “Steno Typist” and came to be selected and appointed as per order dated 10/10/1984. The proposal of Petitioner came to be forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee in the year 1995 along with documents some of them are pre-constitutional and some of them are of prior to year 1950. The Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry in relation to the caste claim of the Petitioner and submitted it’s report on 20/12/2021. The Petitioner filed her reply to the said Vigilance Cell Report on 06/01/2022 and submitted that she had submitted preconstitutional documents in respect of her blood relatives they have the greatest probative value in the eyes of law.

¶54

7 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶55

Judgment

¶56

The Vigilance Officer procured the documents wherein the entries of ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’ and ‘Mana Ku.’ are found. The Vigilance Officer relied upon the entries of ‘Mani’ of postconstitutional period in respect of documents of the year 1953 and 1952 and given weightage too as compared to preconstitutional documents. The Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 17/01/2022 invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner mainly on the grounds of documentary evidence, affinity and area restriction, which is impugned in this Petition.

¶57

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director and Member-Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Ors. , reported in AIR Online 2023 BOM 1849 .

¶58

As against this, the Respondent Committee submitted that as per the provisions of Maharashtra Act of 23 of 2001 Section 8 imposes burden squarely on the Petitioner/applicant who claims belonging to the Schedule Tribe to establish and prove claim as genuine. It is further submitted that the Petitioner

¶59

8 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶60

Judgment

¶61

submitted documents dated 01/01/1941 and 08/06/1943 prior to the presidential notification. It is submitted that in reference to the born child no corroborative documents are placed on record so also in the vigilance enquiry nothing has been procured. In the Birth extract, surname is not mentioned. This is single entry document relied by the Petitioner and the Committee is rightly discarded the same by recording specific findings. The Petitioner has relied on school leaving certificate of the father Vithoba Tulsiram Barekar dated 19/09/1949 and 29/10/1958 showing caste as Mani. The Petitioner also relied upon the admission extract dated 14/03/1953 of her father wherein also the caste is recorded as the Mani as well as documents dated 19/09/1949, 11/04/1952, 14/03/1953 and 25/10/1958 showing caste as ‘Mani’, which squarely demonstrates that the Petitioner does not belong to Mana Schedule Tribe community.

¶62

The Respondent Committee further submitted that the Vigilance Cell procured certain documents which are adverse to the claim of the Petitioners where the caste mentioned as ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’ and ‘Mana Ku.’. It is further contended that the

¶63

9 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶64

Judgment

¶65

Scrutiny Committee passed the order dated 17/01/2022 in both the writ petitions on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. The Committee has rightly invalidated the tribal claim of both the Petitioners as ‘Mana’ Schedule Tribe.

¶66

Heard both the parties at length. Perused the original record produced by the Assistant Government Pleader of Caste Scrutiny Committee and considered the citations relied on by the Petitioners.

¶67

For the sake of convenience family tree is reproduced

¶68

as under :

¶69

The Petitioner placed on record many documents along with old documents prior to 1950. There are old documents of Raoji Bhiva Mana. It appears that the said

¶70

10 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶71

Judgment

¶72

document is of year 1943 wherein the Raoji Bhiva shown as ‘Mana’. The Petitioner have produced document dated 03/06/1943 pertaining to birth extract of the Dattu born to Raoji Bhiva Mana. If family tree is perused, the name of Dattu as well as Raoji are appearing in the family tree. There is another document Annexure-6 page 30, pertaining to Vithoba Tulshiram Barekar dated 14/03/1953 wherein date of admission is of 14/04/1949 and Caste is shown as “Mani”. This entry also appearing in the Admit Cancel Register at serial No.667.

¶73

The Petitioners also placed on record the Service Book extract showing date of birth of Vithoba Tulshiram Barekar as 01/01/1941 and Caste is shown as “Mana”. It appears that he entered into the service prior to 16/07/1964. So far as birth entry of Namdeo S/o Tulshiram Va Bhiva Mani, it is of 1946. Therefore, if Raoji Bhiva shown as Mana on 03/06/1943, his heirs cannot be of any other caste. The document at page No.35 is showing dated 06/11/1930 wherein Bhiva has shown as Mana. The deceased was shown as Kamiji Bhiva Mana. It appears that on some places the forefathers of the Petitioners are shown as Mana. The entry of 03/06/1943 in respect of

¶74

11 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶75

Judgment

¶76

Tulshiram though shown as Mani, the date of admission shown as 14/04/1949 and date of school leaving is shown as 14/03/1953. Thus, the entry of 1943 prevails over the entries showing Caste Mana of Raoji Bhiva. The Mana Caste is shown of the forefathers of the Petitioner i.e. Raoji Bhiva, therefore their successor cannot be of any other caste. Wherever Mani is reflecting in the documents, those will have to be treated as Mana because oldest entry of 1943 is of Caste Mana.

¶77

The Caste Scrutiny Committee on this document held that there is an entry of Mana Ku, however, on perusal of original document, there is only entry of ‘Mana’, there is no such ‘Ku’ have mentioned in entry No.6 at page 73 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. When there is no entry of ‘Mana Ku’ but only ‘Mana’, the findings in that regard is totally perverse. There is another entry of Tulshiram S/o Bhiva dated 06/03/1941 wherein name is written as Tulshiram Vald Bhiva (Kunbi) however, on this document it cannot be ascertained that the caste of Tulshiram wald Bhiva, who so ever used to cultivate the land were used to name as Kunbi. The Kunbi caste is entered into the Other Backward Class (OBC) category in the year 1993,

¶78

12 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶79

Judgment

¶80

till that date it was a profession of persons who were cultivating the land. There is no mentioned of any caste in the said document. Therefore, it would be appropriate to rely on the document of Raoji Bhiva of 1943 showing caste as Mana. The Mani entries has to be treated as Mana as it is a variation/misnomer in the pronunciation. Admittedly there is no caste as Mani. In the case of B. Basavalingappa Vs D. Munichinnappa & Ors. , reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269, wherein in para 10 held as under :

¶81

“ 10 . It is however, urged that the Order does not mention the caste Boyi but the caste Bhovi and that wherever there is a difference in spelling of the same caste, the Order has provided for that also; (see for example, Bhambi, Bhambhi, Shenva, Chenva; etc.). Therefore when the Order provided the inclusion of the caste Bhovi therein it could not refer to Voddar caste, for the change of name that was sanctioned by the then Government of Mysore in 1946 was from Voddar to Boyi. Here again there is force in the contention that where the same caste was spelt differently, the different spellings have been provided in the Order as illustrated already. But the same difficulty which faced us in considering the question whether Voddar caste was meant by the caste Bhovi included in the Order arises when we consider the difference in spellings, for it is not in dispute that there was no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed in 1950 when the

¶82

13 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶83

Judgment

¶84

Order was passed. As the President could not have included in the Order a non- existent caste, it means the word 'Bhovi' relates to some caste in Mysore as it was before 1956 and we have, therefore, to establish the identity of that caste and that can only be done by evidence. In that connection the High Court has held that ever since the Order of 1946, the Voddar caste has been variously spelt as Boyi, Bovi, and Bhovi in English, though the Kanada equivalent is one and the same. The High Court, therefore, has not attached any importance to the change in the English spelling in the peculiar circumstances of this case. In this connection attention may be drawn to the notification of the then Government of Mysore dated February 2, 1946 where Voddar caste is spelt in three ways in the same notification; at one place it is spelt as Voddara, at another place as Voddar and at two places as Vodda. It seems, therefore, that we cannot attach undue importance to the spelling in English in this case when we know that there was no specific caste known as Bhovi in Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we have to determine which was the caste which was meant by the use of that term in the Order. In this connection we may also draw attention to another copy of the same notification which was issued by another department of the Government. In that copy Voddara has been spelt as Vaddara and Boyies as Bovis. It seems to us, therefore, that the High Court was right in the peculiar circumstances of the present case in not attaching any importance to difference in spelling in English, and to treat Bhoviv as the same as Boyis. We do not think it necessary to refer to the various census reports, which have been referred to by the Tribunal and the High Court for they only show how the same caste has been differently spelt. In the circumstances, therefore, we agree with the High

¶85

14 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶86

Judgment

¶87

Court that respondent No. 1 though Voddar by caste belongs to the scheduled caste of Bhovi mentioned in the Order. We may again repeat that we have referred to the evidence in this case only because there was undoubtedly no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we had to find out, therefore, which caste was meant by the word “Bhovi” as used in the Order. But for this fact it would not have been open to any party to give evidence to the effect that (for- example) caste A mentioned in the Order includes or was the same as caste B where caste A does exist in the area to which the Order applies.”

¶88

We are of the considered opinion that even in present case, the oldest entry is of 1941 showing Caste Mana, thereafter subsequent entries of Mani, it is nothing but a variation of about Mana. There is no caste by name Mani in any presidential order. If the oldest entries shows caste as Mana, there cannot be legal heirs of any different caste specifically when there is no caste in existence like Mani.

¶89

In view of the above position, we are inclined to allow both the Petitions. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order :

¶90

(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶91

15 J-WP No.2138.2022+1.odt

¶92

Judgment

¶93

(ii) The impugned order dated 17/01/2022, passed by the Respondent No.1 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in case No.lgvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/2009/13845, and case No.lgvk/vtizrl/ve/5/510/Ser/032019/13756, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶94

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that they belong to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe.

¶95

(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of “Mana” Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of two weeks.

¶96

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶97

( RAJ D. WAKODE, J. ) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶98

Kirtak

Jyoti D/O Vithoba Barekar (Sau. Jyoti W/O Prakash Baikawad) v. the Vice-Chairman/Member Secy., S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti D/O Vithoba Barekar (Sau. Jyoti W/O Prakash Baikawad) v. the Vice-Chairman/Member Secy., S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakil S/O Daulatbhai Khan and Another Vs Joint Director of Vocational Education and Training, Nagpur and Others

Dhamangaon Education Society, Thr. Secretary, Amravati Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Another

Pranit S/O Pradip Sawsakade Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Ors.

Vijay S/O Govardhan Patkar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Member / Sec. Amravati

Himanshu S/O Mangesh Dhote vs Dy. Commissioner and Vice-President, the S.T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Ors.

Sheetal Manish Uike vs Manish Daddelal Uike