Ku. Namrata D/o Chintaman Chaudhari vs The Vice-Chairman / Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Respondent no. 1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, whereby her claim of belonging to ‘Mana’, Scheduled Tribe, has been invalidated. The petitioner claims to belong to the Mana Scheduled Tribe, which is included in Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate dated 16.12.2017 by the competent authority and thereafter the Principal of her college forwarded her proposal for verification of her tribe claim before the respondent– Committee through her educational institution.

For substantiating her claim, the petitioner relied upon various documentary records, including her own caste certificate, school records, caste validity certificates issued in favour of her father, paternal uncle and sister, pre-Constitutional documents relating to her ancestors. Following are the documents relied on by the petitioner:

The petitioner's claim was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell for enquiry. The Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted its report, wherein certain adverse entries were relied upon, including the entry ‘Kun. Mana’ in the P-1 extract of 1911-12 and ‘Mana Kunbi’ in the school record of Purushottam Parasram Chaudhari. The Vigilance Cell also raised an objection regarding the relationship of Govinda Damdu Mana mentioned in the Kotwal Register entry. The petitioner submitted her reply to the vigilance report and explained that the said adverse entries could not displace the evidentiary value of the old documentary records showing her ancestors as Mana.

After considering the vigilance report and the material placed on record, the respondent–Committee passed the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 invalidating the petitioner's claim mainly on the ground that the documentary evidence did not establish her belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe and that the entries reflected ‘Mana Kunbi’ and ‘Kun. Mana’. The Committee also recorded adverse findings regarding affinity and relied upon the vigilance report. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the Committee failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in its proper perspective and ignored the validity certificates issued to her close blood relatives.

Ms. Preeti D. Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant documentary evidence and selective reliance upon adverse entries. It was urged that the petitioner had produced several old and pre-Constitutional documents, which establish the petitioner's paternal lineage and connection with the Mana community. According to her, such old documentary evidence carries greater probative value and could not have been discarded merely on the basis of statements recorded during the vigilance enquiry.

It was further submitted that the Committee erred in placing reliance upon the entries ‘Kun. Mana’ and ‘Mana Kunbi’ appearing in certain documents. She contended that the entry ‘Mana Kunbi’ recorded in the school record of the year 1968 is a post-Constitution document and, therefore, could not prevail over the constitutional recognition accorded to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. It was further submitted that undue importance had been attached to the entry ‘Kun. Mana’ appearing in the P-1 extract of the year 1911-12 pertaining to the petitioner's ancestor, Krushna s/o Sadu Mana. According to her, the said isolated entry could not be treated as conclusive against her, particularly when the remaining documentary evidence, including the pre-Constitution records and the caste validity certificates issued in favour of her father, paternal uncle and sister, consistently supported her claim of belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. It was further contended that the Scheduled Tribes Order recognises only ‘Mana’ as a Scheduled Tribe and does not recognise any separate entry such as ‘Kun. Mana’.

She further submitted that the respondent– Committee failed to appreciate the effect of the caste validity certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father namely Chintaman Parasram Chaudhari dated 15.07.2019, paternal uncle namely Purushottam Parasram Chaudhari dated 19.05.2007 and real sister namely Harshala Chaudhari. It was contended that such validity certificates were issued after due verification and vigilance enquiry and, therefore, had significant evidentiary value. The Committee could not have discarded the said certificates without recording cogent reasons. Reliance was also placed on judicial precedents wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that entries such as ‘Kun. Mana’ and ‘Mana Kunbi’ cannot be treated as decisive to reject a claim of Mana Scheduled Tribe when the entire documentary evidence is considered cumulatively.

It was lastly submitted that the Committee has wrongly applied the affinity test as a ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim. According to the petitioner, affinity test is only a corroborative test and cannot override documentary evidence. The Vigilance Cell and the Committee failed to examine the social and cultural aspects in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and subsequent judgments. It was therefore contended that the impugned order, being contrary to the material available on record and passed without proper appreciation of evidence, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to issuance of validity certificate of Mana Scheduled Tribe.

Per contra, Mrs. S. S. Jachak, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–Committee supported the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 and submitted that the petitioner's claim of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe was examined by the Committee in accordance with the provisions and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra), the petitioner's claim was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell for detailed enquiry. After receipt of the vigilance report and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Committee, upon appreciation of the entire material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish her claim of belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe.

She submitted that the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner did not establish her affinity with the Mana Scheduled Tribe. It was contended that the record produced by the petitioner itself contained entries indicating affiliation with the non-tribal ‘Mana Kunbi’ community. Particular reliance was placed on the P-1 extract of 1911-12 relating to Krishna s/o Sadu, wherein the entry ‘Kun. Mana’ was recorded, and the school record of Purushottam Parasram Chaudhari of the year 1968 showing the caste as ‘Mana Kunbi’. According to the respondent, the existence of similarly named communities such as Mana Kunbi, Kunbi Mana, Maani and other non-tribal communities necessitates strict scrutiny of the claim, and mere mention of the word ‘Mana’ in a document cannot automatically establish a claim under the Scheduled Tribe category.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had relied upon the Kotwal Register extract dated 11.10.1945 relating to Govinda Damdu Mana; however, during the vigilance enquiry, it was found that the said person was not connected with the petitioner's family. The Vigilance Cell verified the genealogy and statements of the petitioner's relatives and village residents and found discrepancies between the genealogy produced by the petitioner and the actual family records. Therefore, the Committee rightly did not place reliance upon the said document. It was submitted that the petitioner could not claim benefit of a document which was not established to relate to her own family lineage.

The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the caste validity certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father, paternal uncle and sister could not, by themselves, confer a right upon the petitioner to claim validation. It was contended that each caste claim is required to be examined independently on the basis of the evidence produced by the claimant. The Committee observed that the earlier validity certificates had been issued without considering the material subsequently brought on record, including the entries ‘Mana Kunbi’ and ‘Kun. Mana’. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order is based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence, vigilance report and affinity test, and does not warrant interference.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material placed on record. Before adverting to the issues involved in the present matter, it would be apposite to reproduce the genealogy tree submitted by the petitioner, which forms the basis of her claim of relationship with the persons whose documents have been relied upon by her:

The genealogy tree furnished by the petitioner is of considerable relevance in the present matter, as the documents relied upon by her are not claimed independently but are sought to be connected with her paternal lineage. Therefore, the first aspect which requires consideration is whether the persons whose documents are relied upon by the petitioner form part of her family lineage. The appreciation of documentary evidence in caste verification proceedings cannot be undertaken in isolation; rather, the documents are required to be examined in the backdrop of the genealogy, relationship and continuity of entries reflected therein.

It is settled that in a caste claim, the burden lies upon the claimant to establish his/her affinity and descent from the claimed community by producing cogent documentary evidence. At the same time, the Scrutiny Committee is required to consider the entire material cumulatively and cannot examine individual documents in isolation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) has laid down the procedure for verification of caste claims and emphasized the necessity of examining documentary evidence and other material collected during enquiry. Subsequently, in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that documentary evidence relating to ancestors, particularly documents prepared prior to independence, carries greater probative value as such entries were made at a time when there was little possibility of manipulation for the purpose of obtaining reservation benefits.

In the present case, the genealogy placed on record by the petitioner indicates that Parasram Damdu Mana is shown as the grandfather in the paternal lineage of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the documents pertaining to Mangaldas, particularly the Dakhal Kharij Register and the school record, wherein the name of his father is recorded as Parasram Damdu Mana. Thus, these documents assume significance as they provide a connecting link between Mangaldas and Parasram Damdu Mana, who is shown in the genealogy submitted by the petitioner. The relevance of such documents lies in establishing the continuity of the family lineage and the caste description of the ancestors from whom the petitioner claims descent. Once the relationship between Mangaldas and Parasram Damdu Mana is established through contemporaneous documentary records, the entry describing Parasram as ‘Mana’ becomes a relevant circumstance while considering the claim of the petitioner.

The respondent–Committee, however, while considering the said documents, appears to have examined them in a fragmented manner. Instead of considering whether the documents relating to Mangaldas, coupled with the genealogy, established the relationship with Parasram Damdu Mana, the Committee discarded the same primarily on the ground that the documents did not independently establish the petitioner's caste claim. Such an approach, in our considered view, overlooks the settled principle that caste claims are required to be determined on the basis of the cumulative effect of all the evidence available on record.

The petitioner has also relied upon the Kotwal Register extract dated 11.10.1945 relating to Govinda Damdu Mana. As reflected from the genealogy, Govinda Damdu Mana has been shown as a member of the petitioner's paternal lineage. The Committee discarded the said document by relying upon the vigilance report, wherein it was observed that Govinda was not found to be a family member of the petitioner. However, the vigilance report is only an investigative aid and cannot substitute the independent appreciation of evidence required to be undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee.

The petitioner has also relied upon the P-1 Register extract pertaining to Krishna s/o Sadu for the year 1911-12 and the Kotwal Register extract dated 11.10.1945 pertaining to Govinda Damdu Mana. These documents, though not forming the sole basis of the petitioner's claim, lend corroboration to the documentary evidence establishing the petitioner's paternal lineage. Insofar as the entry relating to Krishna s/o Sadu is concerned, the respondent-Committee has proceeded on the premise that the expression ‘Kun. Mana’ necessarily denotes ‘Mana Kunbi’ and, therefore, militates against the petitioner's claim. We are unable to accept such an approach. The impugned order does not refer to any contemporaneous material or documentary evidence explaining the meaning or significance of the abbreviation ‘Kun.’ or establishing that it invariably denotes ‘Kunbi’. The entry itself records ‘Kun. Mana’ and does not expressly record the caste as ‘Kunbi Mana’. In such circumstances, the said entry, by itself, could not have been treated as determinative of the petitioner's tribe claim, particularly when it was required to be appreciated in conjunction with the other documentary evidence and the validity certificates produced by the petitioner. Likewise, the Kotwal Register relating to Govinda Damdu Mana constitutes another old document reflecting the caste entry as ‘Mana’. These documents are required to be appreciated along with the other contemporaneous records and the genealogy produced by the petitioner. Viewed cumulatively, they corroborate the consistent documentary evidence showing the petitioner's ancestors as belonging to the ‘Mana’ community, and the respondent-Committee was not justified in discarding their evidentiary value by placing undue emphasis on an unexplained abbreviation in one document.

Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence relating to ancestors, the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the caste validity certificates issued in favour of her father, paternal uncle and her real sister. Though every caste claim is required to be examined independently, the validity certificates issued to close paternal relatives constitute relevant corroborative material, particularly when the relationship with such persons is not disputed.

The Committee observed that the earlier validity certificates were issued without proper appreciation of the relevant material. However, there is no specific finding recorded by the Committee that such certificates were obtained by fraud, suppression or misrepresentation. In absence of such a finding, the said validity certificates could not have been completely ignored and were required to be considered as corroborative evidence while examining the petitioner's claim.

Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we find that the respondent–Committee has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The Committee has placed undue emphasis on the entries ‘Kun. Mana’ and ‘Mana Kunbi’ while failing to consider the evidentiary value of the old documents showing the petitioner's ancestors as ‘Mana’, the genealogy connecting such ancestors with the petitioner and the validity certificates issued in favour of close paternal relatives.

The respondent-Committee has devoted considerable discussion to the historical existence of communities such as Mana Kunbi, Maani, Mane and other similarly named communities. The existence of such communities is not in dispute. However, the mere existence of similarly named non-tribal communities cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to reject the claim of every person describing himself as ‘Mana’. The Committee was required to determine whether the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’ on the basis of her own documentary evidence, genealogy and the validity certificates of her blood relatives, rather than rejecting the claim on the basis of general anthropological material. The impugned order, however, proceeds largely on the existence of such similarly named communities without adequately appreciating the evidence relating to the petitioner's own family.

The vigilance report, though relevant, is only an aid to the adjudication process and cannot replace the independent assessment of evidence by the Scrutiny Committee. The documents relied upon by the petitioner, when viewed cumulatively and in the light of the genealogy produced on record, strengthens the connection of the petitioner with her ancestors recorded as ‘Mana’. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the respondent–Committee is unsustainable.

On the overall consideration of the material on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner has successfully established her claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in Case No. 6/505/Edu/092021/241133, invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent- Committee, Nagpur is directed to issue a validity certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying her as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the present Writ petition is allowed.

Rule shall be made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.