JUDGMENT : Arun D. Upadhye, J. 1. The claim of the petitioners for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is one of the tribes included in the cluster of tribes in the entry at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 has been rejected by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, by its common order dated 22-6-2017, and this is the subject-matter of challenge in both these petitions. The claim of the petitioners was verified by the Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of admission to Engineering/MBA Course against the seat reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category. 2. Perusal of the order impugned shows that initially the petitioners produced about 42 documents and thereafter 72 documents in support their claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. The Scrutiny Committee sent the said documents to the Police Vigilance Cell to verify their genuineness and authenticity. The Police Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 8-8-2016, observing that the document of the year 1905, mentioned in para No. 16, of the order impugned, was found to be a bogus document. During the enquiry, the Police Vigilance Cell obtained the school, birth, death and revenue records, wherein the caste of the applicants' blood relatives was found to be recorded. The Police Vigilance Cell also recorded the statements of Manohar Ganpatrao Gadmare, the paternal real uncle/paternal cousin-cousin uncle of the petitioners on 7-4-2012 and 14-10-2014. The Committee also recorded the statements of other relatives of the petitioners on 20-12-2012. The show cause notice was issued on 9-7-2012, to which reply was filed on 4-8-2012. Again the Police Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted and the notices were issued on 16-7-2014 and 10-8-2015. After conducting detailed enquiry, recording statements, issuing show cause notices and receiving reply, the Committee heard the petitioners and their relatives. 3. The Committee framed the issues and recorded the findings as under: Sr. No. i ssues Findings 1. Whether the tribe claim of the applicants is proved by way of documentary evidences/ No 2. Whether the tribe claim of the applicants sustains by way of affinity test? No 3. What order? As per the final order given below. 3. The Committee framed the issues and recorded the findings as under: Sr. No. i ssues Findings 1. Whether the tribe claim of the applicants is proved by way of documentary evidences/ No 2. Whether the tribe claim of the applicants sustains by way of affinity test? No 3. What order? As per the final order given below. On Issue No. 1, the Committee recorded the finding that in the oldest records of the years 1920, 1922, 1937-38, 1943, 1944, 1945-46, 1946, 1949, 1954 and 1957, the entry is found as 'Mani' in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioners, though in the other documents of the years 1962, 1971, 1974, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2010, the entry is found as 'Mana'. In respect of the caste validity certificates issued validating the claims of the fathers of the petitioners and other blood relatives for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', the Committee holds that the validity certificates were issued only as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5270 of 2004 without conducting vigilance enquiry and going into the merits. It holds that the socio-cultural affinity was not tested and the conditional validity holders suppressed the entry of 'Mani' in the oldest documents. 4. In para 40 (n), the Committee observed as under: "(40) Issue No. 2 - Whether the tribe claim of the applicants sustains by way of affinity test? .. No. (n) Further, it is crucial to place on record that non-tribal Mana other caste people deliberately misled Government Authorities and mis-interpreted judgment of this Hon'ble Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal: (2006) 4 SCC 98 . Even though in the said judgment it was laid down that Mana in Entry No. 18 of List of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra has to be treated independent Scheduled Tribe under the said Entry No. 18. Perusal of the entire judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 98 nowhere mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court bar inquiry and verification between genuine Scheduled Tribe Mana and non-tribal other caste Mana communities. Even then those non-tribal other caste Mana communities mislead the Government on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5270/2004 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Perusal of the entire judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 98 nowhere mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court bar inquiry and verification between genuine Scheduled Tribe Mana and non-tribal other caste Mana communities. Even then those non-tribal other caste Mana communities mislead the Government on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5270/2004 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal) and went on obtaining validity certificate only on the ground of that judgment." While referring to the affinity test, the Committee made a reference to the Government Gazette and the record of Anthropological Survey of India pertaining to non-tribal 'Mana' community. The Committee holds that the petitioners have failed to establish affinity with 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. 5. On 4-12-2017, this Court passed an order as under: "Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 18.12.2017. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 to file their reply without fail by returnable date on observations in paragraph (n) of the impugned order, while recording finding on issue no. 2. If they do not file reply, they shall remain present with necessary records on that date. Steno-copy of the order is permitted." In response to the aforesaid order, the Committee has filed an affidavit dated 16-1-2018, and it is stated in para 3 thereof as under: "3. At the outset, it is submitted that the answering respondent has utmost regard and respect of the majesty of the Court and every time complied the order of this Hon'ble Court into its true letter and spirit. The observation made by the answering respondent in the order which is at para(n) while deciding issue no. 2 and reproduced by the petitioner, is unintentional and the Scrutiny Committee submits that the said observations are not happily worded. The Scrutiny Committee submits that it had not intention of any harm to any person or persons or institutions in general or particular. It is submitted that there was no intention to offend any person or institution and the answering respondent tenders its unconditional apology for the words used in para (n) while deciding issue no. 2. The Scrutiny Committee submits that it had not intention of any harm to any person or persons or institutions in general or particular. It is submitted that there was no intention to offend any person or institution and the answering respondent tenders its unconditional apology for the words used in para (n) while deciding issue no. 2. That, it is matter of record that after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Mana Adim Jamat Mandal', Validity Certificate came to be issued in en-mass manner after issuance of Government Resolution dated 6.10.2006 without applying the statutory requirement of conducting Vigilance Cell enquiry and applying affinity test and without properly verifying the pre-constitutional documents. Therefore, in certain matters in which validity came to be issued relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 5270/2004 State of Maharashtra vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in 2006 4 SCC page 98." 6. In the decision of this Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513 , this Court considered a reference to 'Mana' in the book of "Castes and Tribes of Central Provinces, Volume IV" by Russell at pages 172 to 176. This Court also considered the settlement report of Chanda District for the year 1869 -Chapter III dealing with aboriginal tribes and also to the report of Backward Class Commission (Kalelkar Commission). A reference was also made to the Government Resolutions dated 24-4-1985 and 15-6-1995, which clarified that 'Mana' is a sub-tribe of 'Gond', also called and known as 'Mani', 'Mane'. 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane (Kunbi)', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana' are the sub-tribes of this tribe and the persons belonging to these sub-tribes are the pseudo tribals not covered by entry No. 18 lead by a main tribe 'Gond'. As such, a distinction was sought to be made between 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' and the other entries, like 'Mani', 'Mane-Kunbi', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', etc., for grant of benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes. This Court ultimately set aside all such Government Resolutions dated 24-4-1985, 19-6-1988 and 15-6-1995, by which 'Mana' in entry No. 18 was sought to be distinguished or clarified and explained. This Court ultimately set aside all such Government Resolutions dated 24-4-1985, 19-6-1988 and 15-6-1995, by which 'Mana' in entry No. 18 was sought to be distinguished or clarified and explained. This decision was ultimately confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 3 Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 407 : (2006) 4 SCC 98 . 7. The decision by this Court and the Apex Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal has in an unambiguous term held that the earlier view taken by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Dina v. Narayan Singh, reported in 38 ELR 212, in which the distinction was made between 'Mana' on one hand and 'Gond Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., on the other hand to deprive the benefits of entry of 'Mana' at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order was impliedly overruled in the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in (2001) 1 Mh.L.J. 1. 8. In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two', the caste 'Mana' is also known as 'Mane' or 'Mani'. It is stated that etymologically, the word 'Mana' was probably derived from the word 'Mannya' or 'Mann', i.e. honour, which the community held in high esteem. It is neither the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee nor a fact that any separate caste/tribe or sub-caste/tribe as 'Mane', 'Mani' or 'Mannya' exists in the state of Maharashtra. Such castes/tribes are also not shown in the list of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Back Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State Government. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, to which one of us, R.K. Deshpande, J. is a party, in the case of Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod and others, reported in (2018) 2 Mh.L.J. 460 , has considered several aspects of the findings recorded by the Committee in detail and we need not repeat all those here. But few aspects need to be highlighted. This Court has considered the effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Milind's case, cited supra. But few aspects need to be highlighted. This Court has considered the effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Milind's case, cited supra. It is held in paras 11 and 12 in Gajanan's case by this Court as under: "11. In Dina's case, the Apex Court considered the evidence led to establish that 'Mana' in Entry No. 12 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in relation to the State of Maharashtra was of Mana', which is a sub-tribe of 'Gond' (a main tribe) and it was not of 'Kashtriya Badwaik Mana', which is a sub-tribe of 'Maratha'. The Court also rejected the argument that 'Mana' was an independent tribe, which had no affinity with 'Gond'. The effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case is that the entry 'Mana', which is now in the cluster of tribes at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, has to be read as it is and no evidence can be let in, to explain that entry 'Mana' means the one which is either a 'sub-tribe of Gond or synonym of 'Gond' and/or it is not a sub-tribe either of 'Maratha' or of any other caste or tribe." "12. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind's case, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority. To hold that 'Mana' in Entry No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order does not include 'Kashtriya Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., would amount to permitting evidence to be let in to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized Scheduled Tribe. Such tinkering with the Presidential Order is not permissible. Once it is established that 'Mana' is a tribe or even a sub-tribe, it is not permissible to say that it is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Entry No. 18 of the Order. The Scrutiny Committee has failed to understand such effect of overruling the decision in Dina's case." 10. Such tinkering with the Presidential Order is not permissible. Once it is established that 'Mana' is a tribe or even a sub-tribe, it is not permissible to say that it is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Entry No. 18 of the Order. The Scrutiny Committee has failed to understand such effect of overruling the decision in Dina's case." 10. This Court has also considered in Gajanan's case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others, reported in (2004) 9 SCALE 316 , and it is held in para 18 as under: "18. Applying the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah's case, it has to be held in the facts of the present that once it is clear that 'Mana' community is included in entry No. 18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, it has to be read as it is, representing a class of 'Mana' as a whole and it is not permissible either for the Executive or for the Scrutiny Committee to artificially sub-divide or sub-classify 'Mana' community as one having different groups, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani/Mane', etc., for the purposes of grant of benefits available to a recognized Scheduled Tribe. To exclude such persons from the entry 'Mana', to be recognized as Scheduled Tribe, amounts to interference, re-arrangement, re-grouping or re-classifying the caste 'Mana', found in the Presidential Order and would be violative not only of Article 342, but also of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification of entry 'Mana" in different categories, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for the purpose of conferring a status as a recognized Scheduled Tribe is artificial and without any authority. The Committee has, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim by holding that the documents produced simply indicate the caste 'Mana' and not 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'." 11. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case need to be considered as under: (a) The first and the oldest entry relied upon is in the name of Ganpati Jago, the paternal real grandfather/paternal cousin-cousin grandfather of the petitioners, in the School Admission Register on 15-7-1920. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case need to be considered as under: (a) The first and the oldest entry relied upon is in the name of Ganpati Jago, the paternal real grandfather/paternal cousin-cousin grandfather of the petitioners, in the School Admission Register on 15-7-1920. At one place, the caste recorded is 'Mani', and at another place, it is recorded as 'Mana'. The finding recorded by the Committee in para 8 of its order shows that the concerned Head Master has given remarks that in the Admission Register No. 2, there is entry of same Ganpati Jago and his caste is mentioned as 'Mani' on 15-7-1920. (b) The next entry is in the name of Shripat Dasru, the paternal cousin-cousin grandfather/paternal real grandfather of the petitioners, indicating their caste as 'Mani' recorded in the School Admission Register on 4-3-1922. (c) The third entry is in the name of Jagannath Ragho, the paternal cousin grandfather of the petitioners, indicating the caste as 'Mana' in the School Admission Register on 3-4-1922. (d) Thereafter the birth extracts in the name of male child born to Dasru Kisan, the paternal cousin-cousin grandfather/paternal real grandfather, and Ganpat Ragho, the paternal cousin uncle, indicating the caste as 'Mana' recorded on 13-7-1923 and 14-7-1943. (e) Thereafter two entries are showing the caste 'Mani' on 14-10-1943 and 26-1-1944. Thereafter one entry of 'Mana' is of 22-3-1946 and the other entry of 'Mani' is of 18-10-1946. (f) The house tax assessment extract of the years 1937-38 to 1939-40 and 1943-44 to 1945-46 indicates the caste 'Mani'. (g) The last entry prior to 1950 made on 17-6-1949 records the caste 'Mana' in the School Admission Register extract in the name of one Sudhakar Jagannath, the paternal cousin-cousin uncle of the petitioners. It is thus apparent that the entries are mixed entries of 'Mani' and 'Mana' in the old documents prior to 1950 in relation to the blood relatives of the petitioners. On appreciation of the entries in all the pre and post-constitutional period, and the law laid down, as discussed above, we hold that the petitioners have established on the basis of such documentary evidence that the entries therein are of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', covered by entry No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 12. On appreciation of the entries in all the pre and post-constitutional period, and the law laid down, as discussed above, we hold that the petitioners have established on the basis of such documentary evidence that the entries therein are of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', covered by entry No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 12. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in 2011(6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919 : (2012) 1 SCC 113 , the Apex Court has held in para 22 that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents. It adds that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant. In respect of the affinity test, the Apex Court has laid down that a cautious approach has to be adopted, and with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It holds that the affinity test may not be regarded as litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as the sole criteria to reject a claim. 13. We have no hesitation to hold and rather it is an undisputed factual position that none of the documents produced by the petitioners or obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell during the course of enquiry indicate the caste of the petitioner or their ancestors/blood relatives other than 'Mani' or 'Mana'. The several documents evidencing such entry are of pre-constitutional period, having a probative value. In our view, therefore, there was no occasion for the Scrutiny Committee to raise a doubt and to invoke the affinity test to exclude certain categories of 'Mana' on the ground that they are of higher caste or tribe has to be ruled out and to hold that the claim is not genuine. In our view, therefore, there was no occasion for the Scrutiny Committee to raise a doubt and to invoke the affinity test to exclude certain categories of 'Mana' on the ground that they are of higher caste or tribe has to be ruled out and to hold that the claim is not genuine. The Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to carry out such exercise to invalidate the claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. 14. So far as the caste validity certificates issued in the names of the fathers and other blood relatives of the petitioners validating their claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' are concerned, we have already taken a note of the stand of the Committee in its affidavit filed in response to the order passed by this Court, reproduced above. For recording the finding that the non-tribal Mana other caste people have deliberately misled the Government Authorities and misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, cited supra, an apology has been tendered. It is no doubt true that the decision of the Apex Court does not bar the enquiry and the verification between the genuine 'Scheduled Tribe Mana' and non-tribal other caste 'Mana' communities, but the claim has to be tested on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Anand's case, cited supra. The affinity test cannot override the entries in the documents having probative value. 15. It is urged before us that while issuing the caste validity certificates in the names of the father and other blood relatives of the petitioners, the Police Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted. Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 being relevant, is reproduced below: "12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee. (2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry." It is the discretion of the Scrutiny Committee whether the claim is to be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting school, home and other enquiry. If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, then only it can forward the documents to the Vigilance Cell. If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, then only it can forward the documents to the Vigilance Cell. But if the Committee records its satisfaction on the basis of documentary evidence produced and issues a validity certificate, it cannot question its correctness, legality or binding nature or finality attached to it under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) on the ground that the Police Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted. The Committee, in our view, was wrong in ignoring the caste validity certificates issued in the names of the fathers of the petitioners validating their claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'. 16. This question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 . Para 7 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below: "7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the Committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it." The relevant portion in para 9 of the said decision is also reproduced below: "9. ...In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. ...In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner." It is not the finding of the Committee that the fathers of the petitioners obtained the caste validity certificate by playing a fraud or that the grant of certificate was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the certificates indicate that the same are issued in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5270 of 2004. A merely different view on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative would not entitled the Committee to reject the claim. If the Committee is permitted to alter or change its view repeatedly, it would create an anomalous situation that each of the blood relatives would be of different caste/tribe and finality attached would become redundant. In our view, therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the certificate in favour of the petitioners. 17. All other aspects have already been dealt with by us in our decision in Gajanan's case, cited supra, and we need not reproduce the principles laid down therein. 18. In our view, therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the certificate in favour of the petitioners. 17. All other aspects have already been dealt with by us in our decision in Gajanan's case, cited supra, and we need not reproduce the principles laid down therein. 18. In the result, both these petitions are allowed by passing the following order: ORDER (I) The common order dated 22-6-2017 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in both these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. (II) It is declared that the claim of the petitioners for 'Mana', which is an entry at Serial No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is valid and accordingly the Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificates separately in the names of the petitioners within a period of ten days from today. (III) Needless to mention that the authorities concerned with the admission of the petitioners in the Engineering/MBA Course shall treat the petitioners belonging to reserved category of 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' on the basis of this judgment itself, without waiting for issuance of caste validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee and accordingly process their claim for admission in accordance with law. 19. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.