JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri R.M. Wasnik, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. By their consent and considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner – Lady, has been elected as Ward Member from Ward No.6 of Municipal Council, Hingna on 01.11.2015. Thus, she is a Councilor of Municipal Council, Hingna which is a Local Authority constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. 3. She has been elected from reserved category, as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Her caste claim as belonging to Mana, Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee on 22.05.2017. Writ Petition has been filed challenging said order, and this Court has on 22.12.2017, protected her post. 4. In this backdrop, Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in old documents, caste has been consistently recorded as 'Mana', and in few documents caste is recorded as 'Mani'. Only in two documents prepared on the same date, namely 01.07.1966, caste has been recorded as Kunbi Mana. He is relying upon Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.11.2017, in Writ Petition No. 5927/2013 (Ashu Dattuji Shrirame vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and another) to urge that when there is no caste by name 'mane or mani' as recorded in paragraph no.11 of that judgment, the impugned order is unsustainable. One of us (M.G. Giratkar, J), is party to it. 5. He has also invited our attention to judgment dated 30.08.2018 delivered by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 5481/2018 (Manisha Pundlik Dadmal vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and others), where the State Government and Scrutiny Committee had invited attention to position prevailing before 1869-70, or then in 1908. He contends that both these judgments show erroneous approach in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Learned A.G.P. submits that here apart from mana or mani documents, the Scrutiny Committee has come across two entries. One entry is of paternal aunt Baby, which shows caste recorded on 01.07.1966 as Kunbi in school admission register. He contends that both these judgments show erroneous approach in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Learned A.G.P. submits that here apart from mana or mani documents, the Scrutiny Committee has come across two entries. One entry is of paternal aunt Baby, which shows caste recorded on 01.07.1966 as Kunbi in school admission register. On said date, caste of uncle is recorded as Kunbi Mana, in School Admission register. These documents have not been explained by the petitioner, hence, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly taken recourse to the affinity test and found that caste claim is invalid. 7. Shri Wasnik, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Municipal Council points out that after invalidation of the caste claim, petitioner cannot continue as Ward Member at all. He is relying upon the judgment dated 23.08.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29874-29875 of 2016 (Shankar Raghunath Devre (Patil) vs. State of Maharashtra and others). 8. Learned A.G.P.has invited our attention to reproduction of questions formulated by the Full Bench of this Court, by Hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly question no.(ii), and she submits that answer of this Hon'ble Court to that question has been upheld with the result, petitioner cannot continue as Ward member at all. 9. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that here petitioner is not claiming reinstatement, but, points out that caste claim has been invalidated wrongly. This Court has therefore, protected her continuation and if this Court accepts the status of petitioner as Mana Scheduled Tribe, there is no question of petitioner being reinstated. He also adds that uncle of petitioner has been given validity by the Scrutiny Committee on 29.07.2018. 10. Thus, in present facts, we find that caste claim of petitioner has been invalidated because of mani or kunbi or kunbi mana, written in some documents. Perusal of judgment dated 30.08.2018, delivered by Division Bench of this Bench in Writ Petition No. 5481/2018 reveals that there we have looked into the earlier judgments and then in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 we have made the following observations : “9. The relevant portion appearing in subparagraph (B) in impugned order of Scrutiny Committee contains a chart and it reproduces certain facts or figures with reference to Government Gazette. The oldest gazette mentioned there is of the year 1969-70. Paragraph no. part-136 is reproduced in last column. This portion reads as under : 136. The relevant portion appearing in subparagraph (B) in impugned order of Scrutiny Committee contains a chart and it reproduces certain facts or figures with reference to Government Gazette. The oldest gazette mentioned there is of the year 1969-70. Paragraph no. part-136 is reproduced in last column. This portion reads as under : 136. Koonbees from the Largest, the most important, and the sturdiest portion of the Hindoo land cultivator community so much so that Kononbee has come to the synonymous with agriculturist and it is no uncommon thing to hear farmer of Brahmin or other caste describe himself as a “Koonbee Manna”. Perusal of this portion, therefore, shows that Koonbee had become synonymous then with agriculturist and even farmers of Brahmin or other castes describe themselves as “koonbee Manna”. Other part of said chart there the refers to Anthropometric Measurements of Maharashtra by authors like Irawati Karwe and Vishnu Mahadeo Dandekar. Little later in this chart against serial no.3 while extracting some portion from Gazetter of Indian Maharashtra State – Nagpur |District (Revised Edition)(First Edition 1908 and Second Edition (Revised 1966) under the heading “People of Hindu Caste mentioned as Mana agriculturist”, it is recorded that [i] Manes and Dhanojes are the lowest sub divisions [ii] Manes appear to be Manas who have become Kunbis. These portions relied upon by committee, therefore, show that the committee itself has found that Manas who have become Kunbis were recognized as Manes. 10. Though there is no other material to support these recitals in Government Gazette, the position prevailing prior to 1869-1870 or on 1908, therefore, shows that then people from other castes/tribes were presenting themselves as 'Kunbi Manas'. If Manes are original Manas, we failed to understand as to how finding of document recording caste as 'Mane' can itself be fatal to the caste claim. 11. There is, therefore, no cogent material available before this Court in the present matter to hold that any caste by name, 'Mana Kunbi', 'Mana Khyand', 'Kunbi' independently existed. However, looking to reference in old documents, we leave their question open for further consideration in more appropriate manner. In the present case, Committee could not get any material to show that petitioner does not belong to 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe.” Thus, there we have found that material on record was insufficient to show any caste by name 'Mana Kunbi, Mana Khand or Kunbi' independently existed. In the present case, Committee could not get any material to show that petitioner does not belong to 'Mana', Scheduled Tribe.” Thus, there we have found that material on record was insufficient to show any caste by name 'Mana Kunbi, Mana Khand or Kunbi' independently existed. In present facts, the position is not different. Though the Scrutiny Committee has come across about 8 documents which are of old and mention caste as Mani, committee has no where recorded a finding that a caste by name Mani existed. In so far as Kunbi caste is concerned, committee has found that in State of Maharashtra, in list of O.B.Cs., at Sr.No.83, caste Kunbi appear. 11. Entry as Kunbi Mana or Kunbi are of same date i.e. 01.07.1966. Petitioner has given reply to vigilance cell report in which these entries are pointed out, there, he has taken a defence that Mana and Mani are synonyms. He has not denied relationship with paternal aunt Baby or uncle Sadashiv and he has also not disputed the document dated 01.07.1966. He has therefore, not explained how entry Kunbi Mane or Kunbi appear in their school records. However, in the light of the Division Bench judgment mentioned supra, delivered at Nagpur, including the judgment dated 30.08.2018, delivered by us, when there are consistent old entries recording caste as Mana, and the doubtful entries are dated 01.07.1966, the old entries not found to be interpolated or tampered with, prevail. The old entry is of grand father which records his caste as Mana on 28.04.1938. Even in revenue records of year 1912-13, caste of great grand father Tukaram is recorded as Mana. In 1902 document, caste is recorded as Mani; caste of Tukaram Ragho [great grand father] appears to be recorded as Mani in revenue records in 1912-13. We have also noted above the revenue record of same year, where caste is recorded as Mana. Hence, mani entries here cannot be said to be decisive either way. 12. When all entries are Mana, two recent entries of same date mentioning caste as Kunbi Mana and Kunbi, cannot have the effect of negating caste status of petitioner. 13. Added to it, a validity given to Ashok Vithalrao Wakde – uncle of petitioner is not found vitiated by any suppression or fraud. 14. 12. When all entries are Mana, two recent entries of same date mentioning caste as Kunbi Mana and Kunbi, cannot have the effect of negating caste status of petitioner. 13. Added to it, a validity given to Ashok Vithalrao Wakde – uncle of petitioner is not found vitiated by any suppression or fraud. 14. Hence, adopting the view taken on 30.08.2018, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 and direct the Scrutiny Committee to grant validity to petitioner as Mana, Scheduled Tribe. 15. Perusal of order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 29874-29875/2016, reveals that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The Full Bench of this Court then framed three questions and out of it, question no.2 was about failure on the part of elected councilor to produce caste validity within 6 months from the date of election. This question itself takes note of the fact that it is beyond the control of such person to get his caste claim verified at stipulated stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the answer given by the Full Bench. It therefore, follows that if within 6 months, validity is not produced, it results in removing the person from the seat automatically. 16. Here as the petitioner has not produced validity within a period of 6 months, she cannot continue as counsellor. Accordingly we accept the objections raised by the learned A.G.P. and Shri Wasnik, learned counsel. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of interim order for a period of 10 weeks more. In this situation, as we have found caste claim of petitioner valid, we continue that interim order dated 22.12.2017, for a period of 8 weeks more. It shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. 18. Subject to this, Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.