LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-53

SNEHA GAJANAN SHENDE Vs. THE PRINCIPAL MARIYA MAHAVIDYALAYA

Decided On December 08, 2017
Sneha Gajanan Shende Appellant
V/S
The Principal Mariya Mahavidyalaya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, Division Nagpur, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe, which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and cancelling and confiscating the caste certificate dated 28.04.2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur, certifying that the petitioner belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.

(2.) Before the Committee, the petitioner produced total eight documents in support of her caste claim for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. These documents include the oldest document of 1919-20 which is revenue entry in the name of Patralya, the great grandfather of the petitioner recording the caste as 'Mana'. Another document is the extract of school admission register of 1946 in the name of Pandurang, the grandfather of the petitioner containing caste entry as 'Mana'. All the documents produced on record indicate the caste entry 'Mana'. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted the home enquiry and found that the documents produced by the petitioner are of pre constitutional and post constitutional period containing caste entry as 'Mana'. The petitioner also produced two caste validity certificates; one dated 19.10.2005 in the name of Ramesh, the cousin uncle and another dated 25.11.2010 in the name of Giraja, aunt of the petitioner validating their claims for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The Committee, however, rejects these documents by applying tests and recording the reasons as under :

(3.) In the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3308 of 2013 [Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. The Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur, and others] decided on 8-11-2017, we have dealt with all the aforesaid reasoning and we point out below what we have held in the said decision :