Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sakshi Narnaware, challenged the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, which invalidated her claim of belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. She had obtained a caste certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol, on 01/06/2022, and was pursuing B.Tech education against a reserved seat. The Committee, upon receiving her documents, found the claim doubtful and referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell discovered adverse entries in pre-constitutional documents (1903 to 1948) pertaining to her great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, grandfather, and cousin-grandfather, recording their caste as 'Mani', 'Bhormani', 'Mane', and 'Mani Kunbi'. The petitioner admitted these entries in her reply to the show-cause notice but contended that these entries are included in the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. She also relied on the judgment in Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra and argued that her father and cousin uncle had already been granted validity certificates. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden under Section 8 of the Act of 2000 and that the entries must be read as they are. The court held that pre-constitutional documents have higher probative value and that the petitioner failed to explain the adverse entries. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad v. Deputy Director, the court held that 'Mana' in Entry 18 of the Presidential (ST) Order 1950 must be read strictly and cannot include similar/synonymous names or names with prefix/suffix such as 'Mani', 'Mane', or 'Mani Kunbi'. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Committee's order.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Validity - Burden of Proof - Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that the pre-constitutional entries of 'Mani', 'Bhormani', 'Mane', and 'Mani Kunbi' were incorrect or that she belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe - Held that the Committee rightly invalidated the claim (Paras 14-15). B) Scheduled Tribes - Interpretation of Entries - Presidential (ST) Order 1950 - Entry 18 - 'Mana' must be read as only 'Mana' and not as an umbrella term - Tribes with similar/synonymous names or names with prefix/suffix to 'Mana' cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status - Held that entries such as 'Mani', 'Mane', 'Mani Kunbi' are not included in 'Mana' (Paras 16-17). C) Evidence - Probative Value - Pre-constitutional documents have more probative value than subsequent documents - The pre-constitutional entries from 1903 to 1948 regarding the petitioner's ancestors were given due weight - Held that the petitioner's failure to explain these entries was fatal (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, whose ancestors' caste was recorded as 'Mani', 'Bhormani', 'Mane', and 'Mani Kunbi' in pre-constitutional documents, can claim to belong to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 28/08/2023 passed by the respondent Committee is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof under Section 8 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes
- Scheduled Tribes
- Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis)
- Nomadic Tribes
- Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act
- 2000
- Pre-constitutional documents have higher probative value
- Scheduled Tribe 'Mana' must be read strictly as per Presidential Order
- No inclusion of similar/synonymous names or prefix/suffix entries
