2026:BHC-NAG:10093-DB 1 wp no. 7579/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.7579/2025 Miss Kalyani D/o Dilip Narnaware, : PETITIONER Aged about 20 years, Occ. Education, R.o Vidhya Nagari, Nande Pera By-Pass Road, Wani, Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal VS. Deputy Director & Member – : RESPONDENT Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, Near Rangoli Ground, Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal - 445001 Mr. Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. S.S. Dhote, AGP for Respondent CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. Date of reserving the judgment : 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the judgment: 06.08.2026 JUDGMENT (PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the respondent– Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, whereby the 2 wp no. 7579/2025 petitioner's claim for validation of her caste certificate as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, a Scheduled Tribe specified at Serial No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, has been invalidated.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's proposal for verification of her caste claim as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was forwarded by her College to the respondent–Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30.03.2022, along with the requisite documents in support of her claim. Upon receipt of the proposal, the respondent–Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure. After the Vigilance Cell submitted its report, the respondent-Committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain the adverse material collected during the inquiry. The petitioner submitted her detailed explanation along with supporting documents. However, upon consideration of the Vigilance Cell Report, the petitioner's explanation and the documentary evidence placed on record, the respondent–Committee, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2024, invalidated the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee has sought to distinguish the petitioner's case from that of her real brother on the ground that, while adjudicating the caste claim of the petitioner's brother, the Vigilance Cell had obtained only one adverse entry reflecting the caste as "Kunbi". According to the Committee, during the vigilance inquiry conducted in the 3 wp no. 7579/2025

present case, several additional documents pertaining to the petitioner's paternal relatives came to light, wherein the caste was recorded as "Mani", "Mane" and "Kunbi". Proceeding on the premise that such material was not available when the caste claim of the petitioner's brother was considered, the Committee declined to attach any evidentiary value to the validity certificate issued in his favour and held that the same would not govern the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Ananta Ramteke appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's real brother, namely Shubham Dilip Narnaware, has been granted a caste validity certificate certifying him as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5252 of 2019. It is submitted that the said judgment has attained finality and, therefore, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee could not have ignored the validity certificate issued in his favour while considering the petitioner's claim. The Committee discarded the said validity certificate on the ground that, during the vigilance inquiry in the petitioner's case, certain additional documents containing caste entries such as "Mani" and "Kunbi" pertaining to the petitioner's paternal relatives were collected, which were allegedly not available while deciding the claim of the petitioner's brother. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, even assuming that such material was 4 wp no. 7579/2025 subsequently discovered, the Committee could not have disregarded the subsisting validity certificate unless it was first cancelled or revoked in accordance with law on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. It is further submitted that once the petitioner's real brother, belonging to the same paternal lineage, has been held to belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, denial of the same social status to the petitioner is legally unsustainable.

5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, to contend that a validity certificate issued in favour of a paternal blood relative is binding upon the Scrutiny Committee unless it is shown to have been obtained by fraud in proceedings initiated in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Gautam Parashram Gadmade v. The Commandant, State Reserve Police Force and others (Writ Petition No.5832 of 2022), wherein it has been held that a subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of a close blood relative cannot be ignored merely because there are certain inconsistent caste entries in the ancestral records. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has produced 24 documentary evidences, including several pre-Constitution public documents consistently recording the caste of her paternal ancestors 5 wp no. 7579/2025 as "Mana", which possess high probative value. The details of the documents relied upon by the petitioner are tabulated hereinbelow: v- nLr,sotkps ukao nLr,sotkojhy vtZnkjk’kh tkrhph uksan iqjkO;kpk dz- O;Drhps ukao ukrs fnukad 1- tekrhps eqG izek.ki= dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 23-12-2021 ¼mi&foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] jkGsxko ukujojs ft- ;orekG½

2- ‘kkys; iqjkok ¼U;q Oghtu bafXy’k dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 23-06-2011 feMh;e Ldqy] o.kh] ukujojs ft- ;orekG½ 3- ‘kkys; iqjkok ¼o.kh yk;Ul dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 16-05-2017 bafXy’k feMh;e gk;Ldqy vWaM ukujojs dkWyst] o.kh] ft- ;orekG½ 4- tUe izek.ki= ¼uxj ifj”kn dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj && 19-08-2005 o.kh] ft- ;orekG½ ukujojs 5- vk/kkj dkMZ dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj && 02-08-ukujojs 2005 6- vk/kkj dkMZ ‘kqHke fnyhi Hkkm && 05-12-2000 ukujojs 7- tkr oS/krk izek.ki= ¼v-t-iz-r- ‘kqHke fnyhi Hkkm Ekkuk 31-07-2019 lferh] vejkorh½ ukujojs 8- izfrKkys[k uequk & Q oa’kkoG fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 9- ‘kkys; iqjkok vkfnoklh vkJe fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 10-06-1978 ‘kkGk mejh jksM] ft- ;orekG ukjuojs 10- lsok iqLrdkP;k izFke i`”Bkph izr fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 03-10-1972 ukjuojs D.O.B. 11- izfrKkys[k fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 12 vk/kkj dkMZ fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && 03-10-1972 ukjuojs 13 izfrKkys[k fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 14 Xkko uequk 7@12 eglqyh iqjkok fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && Lu 2018 rs ukjuojs 2021 djhrk 15 tekrhps izek.ki= ¼mi&foHkkxh; fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 24-08-vf/kdkjh] jkGsxko ft- ;orekG½ ukjuojs 2018 16 dkSVqafcd f’k/kkif=dk ukjuojs fnyhi ofMy && 24-09-Kkuksckth 2010 17 fuoM.kqd vksG[ki= fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy 06-01-2012 ukjuojs 18 e`R;wpk nk[kyk xzk-ia- okBksMk rk- Kkuksck jketh vktksck && uksan.kh dsGkiwj ft- ;orekG ukjuojs fnukad 17- 07-2007

19 fuoM.kqd vksG[ki= Ukjuojs Kkuksck vktksck && 15-11-1994 jketh 20 e`R;w jftLVj uDdy ‘kadj oYn ekjksrh pqyr vktksck ekuk 04-09-6 wp no. 7579/2025 xko & [kSjh ft- ;orekG ekuk ;kauk 1932 >kysY;k viR;kpk tUer%p e`R;w >kY;kph uksan 21 tUe jftLVj uDdy Kkuksck jketh i.ktksck ekuk Tue fnukad xko& [kSjh] ftYgkf/kdkjh dk;Zy; ekuk ;kauk 06-01-1957 ;orekG flrkjke fjiksVZpk ukokps ,d iq:”k fnukad viR; >kY;kph 12-01-1957 uksan 22- tUe jftLVj uDdy jketh xksek ekuk [kkij Ekkuk 08-03-1930 xko& [kSjh] ftYgkf/kdkjh dk;Zy; ;kauk ‘kkejko i.ktksck ;orekG ukokps ,d iq:”k viR; >kY;kph uksan 23- tUe izek.ki= jketh ekuk ,d [kkij Ekkuk 30-11-1925 xko oG/kk] rk- ojksjk] ft- iq:”k viR; i.ktksck panziwj >kY;kph uksan 24 tUe izek.ki= jketh ekuk ,d [kkij Ekkuk xko [ksetbZ] rk- ojksjk] ft- L=h viR; i.ktksck panziwj >kY;kph uksan

7. However, the respondent- Committee discarded the said documents principally on the ground that they pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which according to the Committee falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that such reasoning is contrary to Rule 12(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, which mandates verification of records from the claimant's original place of residence. It is also contended that certain adverse documents relied upon by the Vigilance Cell do not pertain to the petitioner's family, despite which they have been relied upon without establishing any genealogical nexus with the petitioner. Lastly, placing reliance on the decisions in Pratmesh Ramesh Dadmal v. Deputy Director and Member Secretary and Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785, it is submitted that the affinity test is only a corroborative factor 7 wp no. 7579/2025 and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent– Scrutiny Committee supported the impugned order and submitted that the burden of establishing the caste claim squarely lies upon the petitioner in view of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. According to her, the petitioner has failed to establish that she belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe either by satisfactory documentary evidence or by proving the affinity, traits, customs and characteristics of the claimed tribe. 9. It is submitted that the pre-Constitution documents relied upon by the petitioner are isolated entries lacking corroboration and that the respondent- Committee has rightly disbelieved them. The learned AGP further submitted that the genealogy furnished by the petitioner suffers from inconsistencies, particularly in relation to the birth extract dated 08.03.1930, and, therefore, the Committee was justified in doubting its authenticity. It is also contended that the birth extracts dated 30.11.1925 and 10.03.1928 pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent–Committee, and 8 wp no. 7579/2025 hence the Vigilance Cell rightly expressed reservations regarding their evidentiary value.

10. The learned AGP further submitted that the vigilance inquiry unearthed several adverse documents pertaining to the petitioner's paternal lineage containing caste entries such as "Mani" and "Kunbi", dating from the years 1910, 1922, 1943, 1950, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1964 and 1966. According to her, these adverse entries carry significant probative value and clearly negate the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It is further contended that, unlike the case of the petitioner's real brother, wherein only one adverse entry was available, the present vigilance inquiry has brought on record several additional adverse documents which were not available while deciding his caste claim. Therefore, according to the learned AGP, the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's brother cannot govern the petitioner's case. She further submitted that the decision in Gautam Parashram Gadmade (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not advance the petitioner's case. On these premises, it is urged that the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law. The principal reason which weighed with the Committee in invalidating the petitioner's caste claim is 9 wp no. 7579/2025

the alleged existence of certain adverse entries reflecting the caste as "Mani" and "Kunbi". However, while doing so, the Committee has failed to accord due weight to the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly the pre-Constitution documents and the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother. The approach adopted by the Committee is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of caste claims.

12. The undisputed position on record is that the petitioner's real brother, namely Shubham Dilip Narnaware, has been granted a validity certificate certifying him as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5252 of 2019. The said judgment has attained finality and continues to hold the field. It is not the case of the respondent- Committee that the said validity certificate has been cancelled, recalled or set aside in any proceedings known to law. Equally, there is no finding recorded by the Committee that the said validity certificate was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. In such circumstances, the Committee could not have brushed aside the evidentiary value of the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother merely on the premise that some additional documents were subsequently collected during the vigilance enquiry. Unless the earlier validity certificate is withdrawn or cancelled by following the due process prescribed in law, the same continues to have binding evidentiary value while adjudicating the 10 wp no. 7579/2025

caste claim of another member belonging to the same paternal lineage. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), this Court has categorically held that where a validity certificate has been granted to a paternal blood relative, the Scrutiny Committee is ordinarily bound to extend the benefit thereof to another blood relative unless it is demonstrated that the earlier certificate was procured by practising fraud or by suppressing material facts. Similar principles have also been reiterated in subsequent decisions, including Gautam Parashram Gadmade v. The Commandant, State Reserve Police Force and others (supra). The respondent–Committee, therefore, committed a manifest error in virtually sitting in appeal over the judgment of this Court by refusing to give due effect to the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother.

13. Apart from the above, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner itself lends substantial support to her claim. The petitioner has placed on record four pre-Constitution documents, namely, the birth certificate dated 30.11.1925, the birth extract dated 10.03.1928, the birth extract dated 08.03.1930 and the death register extract dated 04.09.1932, all of which consistently record the caste as "Mana". It is a settled principle that greater probative value is attached to pre-Constitution documents as they came into existence prior to the enactment of the constitutional scheme of reservation and, therefore, carry a presumption of authenticity and reliability. The respondent- Committee has discarded these documents 11 wp no. 7579/2025

principally on the ground that they pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which according to the Committee falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. This reasoning, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly misconceived. Rule 12(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 specifically mandates that the Vigilance Officer shall conduct an enquiry not only at the place where the claimant presently resides but also at the place from where the claimant or his ancestors originally hailed. Therefore, the Committee could not have rejected the pre-Constitution documents merely because they originated from another district. On the contrary, the statutory scheme itself contemplates verification of ancestral records from the original place of residence. The rejection of these documents on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, is contrary to the statutory mandate and cannot be sustained.

14. The Committee has further relied upon certain adverse entries indicating the caste as "Mani" and "Kunbi". However, the petitioner had specifically disputed the genealogical nexus of several of those documents by submitting a detailed explanation in response to the show cause notice. It was specifically contended that the documents dated 25.08.1910 and 20.09.1922 do not pertain to her family members and, therefore, cannot be relied upon against her. Despite these specific objections, the impugned order does not disclose any detailed examination regarding the genealogical linkage of those adverse entries with the petitioner's paternal lineage. A 12 wp no. 7579/2025 mere production of documents containing adverse caste entries cannot by itself become decisive unless the Committee first establishes that those entries genuinely relate to the claimant's ancestors. In the absence of such a finding, the adverse entries lose much of their evidentiary significance, particularly when weighed against the consistent pre-Constitution documentary evidence and the subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother.

15. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that several adverse documents were discovered during the present vigilance enquiry, which were not available when the claim of the petitioner's brother was considered, also does not persuade this Court. If indeed the respondents were of the opinion that such material was sufficient to dislodge the social status already recognized by this Court, the proper course available in law was to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the validity certificate issued to the petitioner's brother by establishing fraud or suppression before the competent authority. So long as that validity certificate continues to remain operative, the respondent- Committee cannot ignore the same while adjudicating the caste claim of another member of the same family. Acceptance of such an approach would lead to an anomalous and legally impermissible situation whereby one real sibling is held to belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe while another sibling tracing the very same paternal ancestry is denied the identical status. Such contradictory findings in respect 13 wp no. 7579/2025 of members of the same family would defeat the very object of certainty and consistency in caste verification proceedings.

16. Further, the aforesaid approach of the respondent- Committee cannot be countenanced in law. Merely because certain additional documents were collected during the vigilance inquiry in the petitioner's case would not, by itself, justify disregarding the subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of her real brother, particularly when the said certificate was granted pursuant to the judgment of this Court and continues to hold the field. Unless it is demonstrated, in appropriate proceedings, that the earlier validity certificate was obtained by practising fraud or by suppressing material facts, the Committee is not justified in refusing to accord due weight to the same while considering the caste claim of another member of the same paternal lineage. If the Committee was of the view that the subsequently discovered documents materially affected the correctness of the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's brother, the proper course available to it was to initiate proceedings in accordance with law for cancellation of the said validity certificate. In the absence of any such proceedings, the Committee could not have ignored the binding evidentiary value of the validity certificate while adjudicating the petitioner's caste claim. 17. The Committee has also referred to the petitioner's alleged failure to satisfactorily establish the affinity test. However, it is now well settled by the 14 wp no. 7579/2025

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785, that the affinity test is only a corroborative tool and cannot be treated as a litmus test in every case. Where documentary evidence of considerable probative value is available, particularly pre-Constitution documents coupled with a subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of a close paternal blood relative, the affinity test recedes into the background and cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim. The respondent-Committee, therefore, committed a serious error in assigning disproportionate importance to the affinity test while overlooking the superior documentary evidence available on record.

18. Upon an overall appreciation of the material placed before it, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing her claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by producing reliable documentary evidence of high probative value, which is further reinforced by the validity certificate already issued in favour of her real brother pursuant to the judgment of this Court. The reasons assigned by the respondent–Committee for discarding such evidence are neither legally sustainable nor supported by the statutory scheme governing caste verification. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from perversity, non-consideration of material evidence, misapplication of settled legal principles and failure to appreciate the binding effect of the earlier judicial determination. 15 wp no. 7579/2025 19. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed in Case No. 11/510/Edu/032022/525 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal shall issue a validity certificate certifying the petitioner as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. 20. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA,J.) (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) MP Deshpande

2026:BHC-NAG:10093-DB 1 wp no. 7579/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.7579/2025 Miss Kalyani D/o Dilip Narnaware, : PETITIONER Aged about 20 years, Occ. Education, R.o Vidhya Nagari, Nande Pera By-Pass Road, Wani, Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal VS. Deputy Director & Member – : RESPONDENT Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, Near Rangoli Ground, Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal - 445001 Mr. Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. S.S. Dhote, AGP for Respondent CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. Date of reserving the judgment : 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the judgment: 06.08.2026 JUDGMENT (PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the respondent– Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, whereby the 2 wp no. 7579/2025 petitioner's claim for validation of her caste certificate as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, a Scheduled Tribe specified at Serial No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, has been invalidated.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's proposal for verification of her caste claim as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was forwarded by her College to the respondent–Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30.03.2022, along with the requisite documents in support of her claim. Upon receipt of the proposal, the respondent–Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure. After the Vigilance Cell submitted its report, the respondent-Committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain the adverse material collected during the inquiry. The petitioner submitted her detailed explanation along with supporting documents. However, upon consideration of the Vigilance Cell Report, the petitioner's explanation and the documentary evidence placed on record, the respondent–Committee, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2024, invalidated the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee has sought to distinguish the petitioner's case from that of her real brother on the ground that, while adjudicating the caste claim of the petitioner's brother, the Vigilance Cell had obtained only one adverse entry reflecting the caste as "Kunbi". According to the Committee, during the vigilance inquiry conducted in the 3 wp no. 7579/2025

present case, several additional documents pertaining to the petitioner's paternal relatives came to light, wherein the caste was recorded as "Mani", "Mane" and "Kunbi". Proceeding on the premise that such material was not available when the caste claim of the petitioner's brother was considered, the Committee declined to attach any evidentiary value to the validity certificate issued in his favour and held that the same would not govern the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Ananta Ramteke appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's real brother, namely Shubham Dilip Narnaware, has been granted a caste validity certificate certifying him as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5252 of 2019. It is submitted that the said judgment has attained finality and, therefore, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee could not have ignored the validity certificate issued in his favour while considering the petitioner's claim. The Committee discarded the said validity certificate on the ground that, during the vigilance inquiry in the petitioner's case, certain additional documents containing caste entries such as "Mani" and "Kunbi" pertaining to the petitioner's paternal relatives were collected, which were allegedly not available while deciding the claim of the petitioner's brother. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, even assuming that such material was 4 wp no. 7579/2025 subsequently discovered, the Committee could not have disregarded the subsisting validity certificate unless it was first cancelled or revoked in accordance with law on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. It is further submitted that once the petitioner's real brother, belonging to the same paternal lineage, has been held to belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, denial of the same social status to the petitioner is legally unsustainable.

5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, to contend that a validity certificate issued in favour of a paternal blood relative is binding upon the Scrutiny Committee unless it is shown to have been obtained by fraud in proceedings initiated in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Gautam Parashram Gadmade v. The Commandant, State Reserve Police Force and others (Writ Petition No.5832 of 2022), wherein it has been held that a subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of a close blood relative cannot be ignored merely because there are certain inconsistent caste entries in the ancestral records. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has produced 24 documentary evidences, including several pre-Constitution public documents consistently recording the caste of her paternal ancestors 5 wp no. 7579/2025 as "Mana", which possess high probative value. The details of the documents relied upon by the petitioner are tabulated hereinbelow: v- nLr,sotkps ukao nLr,sotkojhy vtZnkjk’kh tkrhph uksan iqjkO;kpk dz- O;Drhps ukao ukrs fnukad 1- tekrhps eqG izek.ki= dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 23-12-2021 ¼mi&foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] jkGsxko ukujojs ft- ;orekG½

2- ‘kkys; iqjkok ¼U;q Oghtu bafXy’k dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 23-06-2011 feMh;e Ldqy] o.kh] ukujojs ft- ;orekG½ 3- ‘kkys; iqjkok ¼o.kh yk;Ul dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj Ekkuk 16-05-2017 bafXy’k feMh;e gk;Ldqy vWaM ukujojs dkWyst] o.kh] ft- ;orekG½ 4- tUe izek.ki= ¼uxj ifj”kn dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj && 19-08-2005 o.kh] ft- ;orekG½ ukujojs 5- vk/kkj dkMZ dY;k.kh fnyhi vtZnkj && 02-08-ukujojs 2005 6- vk/kkj dkMZ ‘kqHke fnyhi Hkkm && 05-12-2000 ukujojs 7- tkr oS/krk izek.ki= ¼v-t-iz-r- ‘kqHke fnyhi Hkkm Ekkuk 31-07-2019 lferh] vejkorh½ ukujojs 8- izfrKkys[k uequk & Q oa’kkoG fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 9- ‘kkys; iqjkok vkfnoklh vkJe fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 10-06-1978 ‘kkGk mejh jksM] ft- ;orekG ukjuojs 10- lsok iqLrdkP;k izFke i`”Bkph izr fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 03-10-1972 ukjuojs D.O.B. 11- izfrKkys[k fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 12 vk/kkj dkMZ fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && 03-10-1972 ukjuojs 13 izfrKkys[k fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && 17-02-ukjuojs 2022 14 Xkko uequk 7@12 eglqyh iqjkok fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy && Lu 2018 rs ukjuojs 2021 djhrk 15 tekrhps izek.ki= ¼mi&foHkkxh; fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy Ekkuk 24-08-vf/kdkjh] jkGsxko ft- ;orekG½ ukjuojs 2018 16 dkSVqafcd f’k/kkif=dk ukjuojs fnyhi ofMy && 24-09-Kkuksckth 2010 17 fuoM.kqd vksG[ki= fnyhi Kkuksckth oMhy 06-01-2012 ukjuojs 18 e`R;wpk nk[kyk xzk-ia- okBksMk rk- Kkuksck jketh vktksck && uksan.kh dsGkiwj ft- ;orekG ukjuojs fnukad 17- 07-2007

19 fuoM.kqd vksG[ki= Ukjuojs Kkuksck vktksck && 15-11-1994 jketh 20 e`R;w jftLVj uDdy ‘kadj oYn ekjksrh pqyr vktksck ekuk 04-09-6 wp no. 7579/2025 xko & [kSjh ft- ;orekG ekuk ;kauk 1932 >kysY;k viR;kpk tUer%p e`R;w >kY;kph uksan 21 tUe jftLVj uDdy Kkuksck jketh i.ktksck ekuk Tue fnukad xko& [kSjh] ftYgkf/kdkjh dk;Zy; ekuk ;kauk 06-01-1957 ;orekG flrkjke fjiksVZpk ukokps ,d iq:”k fnukad viR; >kY;kph 12-01-1957 uksan 22- tUe jftLVj uDdy jketh xksek ekuk [kkij Ekkuk 08-03-1930 xko& [kSjh] ftYgkf/kdkjh dk;Zy; ;kauk ‘kkejko i.ktksck ;orekG ukokps ,d iq:”k viR; >kY;kph uksan 23- tUe izek.ki= jketh ekuk ,d [kkij Ekkuk 30-11-1925 xko oG/kk] rk- ojksjk] ft- iq:”k viR; i.ktksck panziwj >kY;kph uksan 24 tUe izek.ki= jketh ekuk ,d [kkij Ekkuk xko [ksetbZ] rk- ojksjk] ft- L=h viR; i.ktksck panziwj >kY;kph uksan

7. However, the respondent- Committee discarded the said documents principally on the ground that they pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which according to the Committee falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that such reasoning is contrary to Rule 12(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, which mandates verification of records from the claimant's original place of residence. It is also contended that certain adverse documents relied upon by the Vigilance Cell do not pertain to the petitioner's family, despite which they have been relied upon without establishing any genealogical nexus with the petitioner. Lastly, placing reliance on the decisions in Pratmesh Ramesh Dadmal v. Deputy Director and Member Secretary and Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785, it is submitted that the affinity test is only a corroborative factor 7 wp no. 7579/2025 and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent– Scrutiny Committee supported the impugned order and submitted that the burden of establishing the caste claim squarely lies upon the petitioner in view of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. According to her, the petitioner has failed to establish that she belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe either by satisfactory documentary evidence or by proving the affinity, traits, customs and characteristics of the claimed tribe. 9. It is submitted that the pre-Constitution documents relied upon by the petitioner are isolated entries lacking corroboration and that the respondent- Committee has rightly disbelieved them. The learned AGP further submitted that the genealogy furnished by the petitioner suffers from inconsistencies, particularly in relation to the birth extract dated 08.03.1930, and, therefore, the Committee was justified in doubting its authenticity. It is also contended that the birth extracts dated 30.11.1925 and 10.03.1928 pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent–Committee, and 8 wp no. 7579/2025 hence the Vigilance Cell rightly expressed reservations regarding their evidentiary value.

10. The learned AGP further submitted that the vigilance inquiry unearthed several adverse documents pertaining to the petitioner's paternal lineage containing caste entries such as "Mani" and "Kunbi", dating from the years 1910, 1922, 1943, 1950, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1964 and 1966. According to her, these adverse entries carry significant probative value and clearly negate the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It is further contended that, unlike the case of the petitioner's real brother, wherein only one adverse entry was available, the present vigilance inquiry has brought on record several additional adverse documents which were not available while deciding his caste claim. Therefore, according to the learned AGP, the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's brother cannot govern the petitioner's case. She further submitted that the decision in Gautam Parashram Gadmade (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not advance the petitioner's case. On these premises, it is urged that the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law. The principal reason which weighed with the Committee in invalidating the petitioner's caste claim is 9 wp no. 7579/2025

the alleged existence of certain adverse entries reflecting the caste as "Mani" and "Kunbi". However, while doing so, the Committee has failed to accord due weight to the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly the pre-Constitution documents and the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother. The approach adopted by the Committee is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of caste claims.

12. The undisputed position on record is that the petitioner's real brother, namely Shubham Dilip Narnaware, has been granted a validity certificate certifying him as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5252 of 2019. The said judgment has attained finality and continues to hold the field. It is not the case of the respondent- Committee that the said validity certificate has been cancelled, recalled or set aside in any proceedings known to law. Equally, there is no finding recorded by the Committee that the said validity certificate was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. In such circumstances, the Committee could not have brushed aside the evidentiary value of the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother merely on the premise that some additional documents were subsequently collected during the vigilance enquiry. Unless the earlier validity certificate is withdrawn or cancelled by following the due process prescribed in law, the same continues to have binding evidentiary value while adjudicating the 10 wp no. 7579/2025

caste claim of another member belonging to the same paternal lineage. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), this Court has categorically held that where a validity certificate has been granted to a paternal blood relative, the Scrutiny Committee is ordinarily bound to extend the benefit thereof to another blood relative unless it is demonstrated that the earlier certificate was procured by practising fraud or by suppressing material facts. Similar principles have also been reiterated in subsequent decisions, including Gautam Parashram Gadmade v. The Commandant, State Reserve Police Force and others (supra). The respondent–Committee, therefore, committed a manifest error in virtually sitting in appeal over the judgment of this Court by refusing to give due effect to the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother.

13. Apart from the above, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner itself lends substantial support to her claim. The petitioner has placed on record four pre-Constitution documents, namely, the birth certificate dated 30.11.1925, the birth extract dated 10.03.1928, the birth extract dated 08.03.1930 and the death register extract dated 04.09.1932, all of which consistently record the caste as "Mana". It is a settled principle that greater probative value is attached to pre-Constitution documents as they came into existence prior to the enactment of the constitutional scheme of reservation and, therefore, carry a presumption of authenticity and reliability. The respondent- Committee has discarded these documents 11 wp no. 7579/2025

principally on the ground that they pertain to villages situated in Chandrapur District, which according to the Committee falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. This reasoning, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly misconceived. Rule 12(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 specifically mandates that the Vigilance Officer shall conduct an enquiry not only at the place where the claimant presently resides but also at the place from where the claimant or his ancestors originally hailed. Therefore, the Committee could not have rejected the pre-Constitution documents merely because they originated from another district. On the contrary, the statutory scheme itself contemplates verification of ancestral records from the original place of residence. The rejection of these documents on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, is contrary to the statutory mandate and cannot be sustained.

14. The Committee has further relied upon certain adverse entries indicating the caste as "Mani" and "Kunbi". However, the petitioner had specifically disputed the genealogical nexus of several of those documents by submitting a detailed explanation in response to the show cause notice. It was specifically contended that the documents dated 25.08.1910 and 20.09.1922 do not pertain to her family members and, therefore, cannot be relied upon against her. Despite these specific objections, the impugned order does not disclose any detailed examination regarding the genealogical linkage of those adverse entries with the petitioner's paternal lineage. A 12 wp no. 7579/2025 mere production of documents containing adverse caste entries cannot by itself become decisive unless the Committee first establishes that those entries genuinely relate to the claimant's ancestors. In the absence of such a finding, the adverse entries lose much of their evidentiary significance, particularly when weighed against the consistent pre-Constitution documentary evidence and the subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real brother.

15. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that several adverse documents were discovered during the present vigilance enquiry, which were not available when the claim of the petitioner's brother was considered, also does not persuade this Court. If indeed the respondents were of the opinion that such material was sufficient to dislodge the social status already recognized by this Court, the proper course available in law was to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the validity certificate issued to the petitioner's brother by establishing fraud or suppression before the competent authority. So long as that validity certificate continues to remain operative, the respondent- Committee cannot ignore the same while adjudicating the caste claim of another member of the same family. Acceptance of such an approach would lead to an anomalous and legally impermissible situation whereby one real sibling is held to belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe while another sibling tracing the very same paternal ancestry is denied the identical status. Such contradictory findings in respect 13 wp no. 7579/2025 of members of the same family would defeat the very object of certainty and consistency in caste verification proceedings.

16. Further, the aforesaid approach of the respondent- Committee cannot be countenanced in law. Merely because certain additional documents were collected during the vigilance inquiry in the petitioner's case would not, by itself, justify disregarding the subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of her real brother, particularly when the said certificate was granted pursuant to the judgment of this Court and continues to hold the field. Unless it is demonstrated, in appropriate proceedings, that the earlier validity certificate was obtained by practising fraud or by suppressing material facts, the Committee is not justified in refusing to accord due weight to the same while considering the caste claim of another member of the same paternal lineage. If the Committee was of the view that the subsequently discovered documents materially affected the correctness of the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's brother, the proper course available to it was to initiate proceedings in accordance with law for cancellation of the said validity certificate. In the absence of any such proceedings, the Committee could not have ignored the binding evidentiary value of the validity certificate while adjudicating the petitioner's caste claim. 17. The Committee has also referred to the petitioner's alleged failure to satisfactorily establish the affinity test. However, it is now well settled by the 14 wp no. 7579/2025

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785, that the affinity test is only a corroborative tool and cannot be treated as a litmus test in every case. Where documentary evidence of considerable probative value is available, particularly pre-Constitution documents coupled with a subsisting validity certificate issued in favour of a close paternal blood relative, the affinity test recedes into the background and cannot be made the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim. The respondent-Committee, therefore, committed a serious error in assigning disproportionate importance to the affinity test while overlooking the superior documentary evidence available on record.

18. Upon an overall appreciation of the material placed before it, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing her claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by producing reliable documentary evidence of high probative value, which is further reinforced by the validity certificate already issued in favour of her real brother pursuant to the judgment of this Court. The reasons assigned by the respondent–Committee for discarding such evidence are neither legally sustainable nor supported by the statutory scheme governing caste verification. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from perversity, non-consideration of material evidence, misapplication of settled legal principles and failure to appreciate the binding effect of the earlier judicial determination. 15 wp no. 7579/2025 19. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed in Case No. 11/510/Edu/032022/525 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal shall issue a validity certificate certifying the petitioner as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. 20. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA,J.) (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) MP Deshpande