Ku. Sonali Someshwar Ghodmare vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER: PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

Heard.

By way of present application, the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The grounds which the petitioner has raised for seeking review are as under:

It would be relevant to note that learned Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. Accordingly, this Court in paragraph No.19 of the judgment specifically recorded that, documents collected by Vigilance Cell and documents placed on record of petitioner cannot be considered for granting validity of “Mana” Tribe to petitioner. So also, specifically recorded that in light of verdict of the Full Bench, judgment relied by petitioner are not applicable in the set of facts of petition. From the finding of this Court, it is clear that this Court has gone through the judgments referred by petitioner, but were not found relevant.

For our satisfaction, we have gone through the judgments, which were referred by petitioner, which according to him ought to have been considered by this Court while deciding the petition. The judgments which he has pointed out are on the point that caste having synonyms, prefix or suffix to caste “Mana” shall be treated as “Mana” (Scheduled Tribe). This Court in paragraph No.19 of the judgment, considered this aspect and rightly recorded that judgments relied by petitioner are not applicable in the matter.

It would be further relevant to note that the judgments relied by the petitioner will not hold the field because, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad (supra) in paragraph No.17.7 has specifically observed as under:

In view of this finding, the judgment which applicant wants to rely upon in the present matter, in our considered opinion, will not override the judgment of Hon’ble Full Bench, and hence this submission cannot be accepted.

In respect of the submission that judgment of Gitesh Narendra Ghormare (supra) did not overrule in its entirety by the Full Bench we have perused the judgment of the Full Bench. The Full Bench has categorically recorded the finding that the case of Gitesh Narendra Ghormare (supra) is contrary to what has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As such, the Full Bench in unequivocal terms held that the view taken in the case of Gitesh Narendra Ghormare (supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the Constitutional Benches. In this regard, the finding at paragraph No.17.4 in the case of Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad (supra) would be relevant, which reads as under:

In respect of the finding of the Full Bench, particularly to question ‘D’, which according to petitioner connotes Documentary Entry can be construed referring to evidence, enquiry and anthropologist’s opinion and accordingly claim can be decided by Committee, it would be relevant to reproduce the question ‘D’ and its answer which is recorded in paragraph No.24 of the judgment reads as under:

The perusal of this answer given by the Full Bench, it is clear that while considering an individual claim of belonging to a particular Scheduled Tribe, the entry in the Presidential (ST) Order, 1950 has to be read as it is, and nothing is permissible to be considered while reading the entry as indicated in its answer to question ‘A’. It is held that in consequential to that, a claim of an individual falling within that entry can be considered on the basis of documents and within the parameters of Maharashtra Caste Verification Act, 2000 and the Rules of 2003 as framed thereunder. Therefore, the bare reading of this answer to question ‘D’ would mean that entry in the Presidential (ST) Order, 1950 has to be read as it is. Accordingly, the tribe “Mana”, will have to be read as it is, and in support of the said claim, the documents of an individual can be looked into. Therefore, considering this observation of the Full Bench, submissions of petitioner are devoid of merit and accordingly rejected.

In respect of decision of Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra), it would be relevant to note that, said judgment was taken into consideration by the Full Bench by recording its dictum in paragraph No.18.7. Therefore, it cannot be state that same was not considered by the Hon’ble Full Bench. Hence, considering its applicability would be nothing but rehearing of the matter.

In respect of case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the Committee considered the caste validity certificate issued to the father of the petitioner therein. The father’s caste was recorded as “Mana” (Special Backward Category) in the year 2004, whereas the claim made by the petitioner therein was for “Mana” (Scheduled Tribe). Accordingly, the Committee verified the caste claim of the petitioner therein on the basis of available record as she claimed to be of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the ratio laid down in the judgment of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale (supra) is not applicable in the matter.

It is further pertinent to note that the Full Bench while deciding the controversy, as there were two views of the Division Bench, by reference has clarified the legal position which has been reproduced above, particularly paragraph No.17.7. It is clarified that the Presidential (ST) Order, 1950, more particularly the Scheduled Tribe “Mana” entry No.18, has to be read as only and only “Mana” and not as an umbrella or community, and therefore tribes with the similar/synonymous names or names with prefix/suffix to “Mana” cannot claim any social status of Scheduled Tribe. In view of this settled legal position, the submission of the applicant cannot be accepted.

It is further pertinent to note that in a review application, it is settled principle of law that this Court is not expected to exercise the powers as an appellate Court or to reopen the matter on merits. The applicant has failed to point out any patent error, mistake, or omission apparent on the face of record in the judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in the writ petition. Mere disagreement with the findings and the discussion on the case laws does not constitute a ground for review.

In the present matter, the Full Bench has settled the entire controversy by holding that sub-caste or entries not explicitly contained in the Presidential Order cannot be artificially read into or equated with a Scheduled Tribe entry through judicial interpretation. In the background of abovesaid factual as well as legal position, we do not find any merit in the submission of the applicant and accordingly the review application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.