SAYALI Vs. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dtd. 28/8/2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) Since the petitioner seeks to pursue higher education we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the record maintained by the Scrutiny Committee. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks to rely upon various pre-independence documents of the years 1912-17, 1913-14 and 1914-15 of his predecessors coupled with various other old documents. In addition, he seeks to rely upon validity certificate granted to one of his cousins Pranay Chudamanji Dharne pursuant to the order dtd. 25/6/2019 passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the petitioner's claim has stated that with regard to the document of 1912-17, the entry found is Mana Kunbi. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the said document that the names of his predecessors are shown in column No.6 of the said document while reference is made by the Scrutiny Committee to the names in column No.7 wherein the persons named are not related to the petitioner. We find that the said document clearly indicates names of the petitioner's predecessors in column No.6 which can be gathered from the family tree. This document was thus not liable to be discarded. On the contrary, it is to be noted that this very document was considered by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of four Members while allowing the claim of the petitioner's cousin Pranay. The Scrutiny Committee has discarded the grant of validity certificate to petitioner's cousin on the ground that the family tree indicated in the affidavit of the petitioner's father was not in detail. However, if the said family tree indicated in the affidavit dtd. 13/3/2023 is perused along with family tree considered by the Scrutiny Committee that was part of the Vigilance Enquiry in the case of Raju Dharne, it is seen that the name of Pranay figures in both the family trees. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of adjudication by the Scrutiny Committee itself while granting validity to Pranay. Thus from the various pre-constitutional documents the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe stands established.