JUDGMENT : M.S. Jawalkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at the request and consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Mana’ community which is declared as Scheduled Tribe and listed under Sr. No. 18 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, in relation to the State of Maharashtra under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2000 [Act No. 10 of 2003]. The petitioner applied for Mana Scheduled Tribe Certificate to the respondent i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha. Accordingly, certificate was issued to the petitioner on 27/06/2012. She was pursuing B.A.M.S. four years degree course in Scheduled Tribe category. During her admission, claim was pending before the respondent no.1 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Scrutiny Committee”). On 11/09/2012 Scrutiny Committee delivered the Vigilance Cell report to the petitioner. The petitioner filed her reply to the said report on 11/02/2014. After interview, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioner’s claim of ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The said order invalidating her claim is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. It is pointed out that her father and cousin brother are having validity certificate, showing them belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner placed on record, apart from these validity certificates, two documents which are prior to 1950. There is no dispute about family tree and relation of the petitioner with the members shown in the family tree. Two documents are extract of birth register dated 23/07/1928 in respect of Dhondba Mana who is great grandfather showing his caste as ‘Mana’. Another is sale-deed of year 1920 wherein Bagaji Mana great great grandfather is shown belonging to Mana. Apart from these two documents there are consistent entries in school leaving certificate and admit cancel register in respect of Moreshwar Marotrao Sawasakade of the year 1967 showing his caste as ‘Mana’. Inspite of these documents on record, the Scrutiny Committee without application of mind invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner drawn our attention to the Police Vigilance Report, wherein the document i.e. sale-deed executed in the year 1920, was verified by Cell and gave remark that the said copy is verified and entries are correct. However, Scrutiny Committee recorded adverse finding without verifying the contents of report of Vigilance Cell. The petitioner drawn our attention to the Police Vigilance Report, wherein the document i.e. sale-deed executed in the year 1920, was verified by Cell and gave remark that the said copy is verified and entries are correct. However, Scrutiny Committee recorded adverse finding without verifying the contents of report of Vigilance Cell. So far as birth extract of 1928, it is observed by Scrutiny Committee that the register was not available with Tahasildar Dewali as per report of Vigilance Cell. However, it failed to appreciate that the remark in the said report was that register is in mutilated condition. It was not the case that record was not available. Nowhere it is observed that any fraudulent attempt were made to obtain such certificate. 3. So far as entries ‘Mana’, ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’ are concerned this Court has already decided it in the matter Gitesh S/o. Narendra Ghormare vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others reported in 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 933 . So far as the document in relation to Maroti Dhondba is in respect of grandfather of petitioner. It can be seen that the said entry taken from admit cancel register, page no. 983 wherein, the caste is shown as ‘Kunbi’, which is apparently incorrect. When father of Maroti i.e. Dhondba, the extract of birth register dated 23/07/1928 shows ‘Mana’, entry in respect of Maroti’s caste is also required to be treated as ‘Mana’ and cannot be a ‘Kunbi’. In view of adverse finding by the Scrutiny Committee, it is claimed that the order invalidating caste ‘Mana’ be declared illegal and be set aside. So far as affinity test is concerned, as held in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, there is no substance in the said application of test of affinity, specifically when oldest document shows petitioner’s forefather belonging to ‘Mana’. 4. As against this, Shri A.M. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that even if the validity certificates of father and brother is on record, it is not of much assistance, in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 4645/2015 (Purushottam Bhagwan Gaikwad Vs. Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Gadchiroli and others), wherein this Court held that Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Application No. 5270/2004 was not helpful in granting a validity certificate. Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Gadchiroli and others), wherein this Court held that Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Application No. 5270/2004 was not helpful in granting a validity certificate. Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered whether ‘Mana’ community in the State of Maharashtra is a special tribe of ‘Gond’ and is a Scheduled Tribe or not. This Court held that the Hon’ble Apex Court has in no way directed the Scrutiny Committee to grant caste validity certificate in favour of the person claiming to belong to ‘Mana’, Scheduled Tribe without holding a vigilance enquiry and/or the affinity test. In view thereof, matter was remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned Additional Government Pleader also relied on Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 996 of 2018 reported at MANU/MH/3478/2018 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard both the parties at length and we have gone through the rival contentions raised by the parties. 6. Admittedly, there are validity certificates of petitioner’s father and cousin brother are on record showing them belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe. Even if it is considered, in view of judgment in Writ Petition No.4645/2015 the Hon’ble Apex Court has in no way directed the Scrutiny Committee to grant caste certificate, without holding vigilance enquiry, in this matter enquiry was conducted. There are documents on record which ought to have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. There are two documents i.e. extract of birth register dated 23/07/1928 which is in respect of Dhondba Mana who is great grandfather of the petitioner. Another document is sale-deed executed by great great grandfather of the petitioner Bagaji Mana dated 29/06/1920. Both the documents are pre 1950 and there was no reasons whatsoever to discard those documents. Reason to discard document of 1920 and 1928 by the Scrutiny Committee on page No.11 is that the caste noted in the document of the year 1923 and 1934 are ‘Mani’, ‘Kunbi’. However, while discarding those documents the Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that the caste of great great grandfather and great grandfather in documents dated 29/06/1920 and 23/07/1928 is shown as ‘Mana’. The subsequent document showing any other entry hardly makes any difference. However, while discarding those documents the Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that the caste of great great grandfather and great grandfather in documents dated 29/06/1920 and 23/07/1928 is shown as ‘Mana’. The subsequent document showing any other entry hardly makes any difference. This issue is already covered by the judgment of this Court in Gitesh Narendra Ghormare (supra) wherein this Court held that – “If there are number of documents containing different kinds of entries of caste/tribe like ‘Mana’, ‘Mane’, Mani’, ‘Mana Kunbi’, Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’, ‘ Maratha Mana’ and so on, the duty of the Court will be to ascertain the dominant entries having greater probative value and record a specific finding of conclusive nature as to whether entries can be construed as ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’, which is an entry in the cluster of tribes at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. Merely because certain documents indicate entry of caste/tribe other than ‘Mana’ is not enough to reject the claim. What is prohibited is that the entry ‘Mana’ in Scheduled Tribes Order does not include or exclude the entries like ‘Mana Kunbi’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’ ‘ Maratha Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’ and so on, which are probably known to exist as separate caste/tribe or sub-caste/tribe. The interpretation, clarification, explanation of the entries in the Scheduled Tribes Order is not permitted. The interpretation of entries in the documents cannot be confused with the interpretation entry in the Scheduled Tribes Order. It is not the finding of the Committee that the father of the petitioner 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. A merely different view on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative would not entitle the Committee to reject the claim. Therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the certificate in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary, the certificates indicate that the same are issued in view of the decision of the Apex Court. A merely different view on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative would not entitle the Committee to reject the claim. Therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the certificate in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner for ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’ cannot be sustained.” It is further held that, ‘the petitioner having conclusively established his claim for ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’ on the basis of the documents having probative value, there was no occasion for the Scrutiny Committee, to raise a doubt and invoke the affinity test to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim’. Concept of recognized Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of giving benefits and concessions was not prevailing prior to 1950 and, therefore, only caste or community to which a person belonged was stated in the birth, school and revenue records maintained. The documents are issued in the printed formats, which contain a column under heading “Caste” and there is no separate column of ‘Tribe’. While entering the name, the distinction between the caste and tribe is ignored. It is the entire ‘Mana’ community all over the State which is conferred a status of recognized Scheduled Tribe. No significance can be attached to the entry of ‘Mana’ in the ‘Caste’ column in the documents and to reject the claim for ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’ on that count. The finding of the Committee to that extent cannot, therefore, be sustained. 7. It is to be noted that in Gitesh (supra), there was specific question put to the learned Assistant Government Pleader vide order dated 27/06/2018 as to whether “Mana Kunbi” is a separate caste in existence. After taking instructions from the Committee, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that there is no separate caste or tribe by name Mana Kunbi included in the list of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class category in the State of Maharashtra. This Court in Gitesh (supra) observed in para-18 as under:- “18. In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two', it is stated that the caste 'Mana' is also known as 'Mane' or 'Mani'. This Court in Gitesh (supra) observed in para-18 as under:- “18. In the publication of Anthropological Survey of India, styled as 'People of India (Maharashtra), Volume XXX, Part Two', it is stated that 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. The Government Resolution dated 24-4-1985 also highlights the position that 'Mana' is known as 'Mane', 'Mani'. The Committee also does not dispute such position. It is neither the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee nor the fact that any separate caste or 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 Backward Classes or Special Backward Classes maintained by the State Government. It is, therefore, of no significance that the community is described as 'Mana', 'Mani', 'Mane' or 'Mannya' and the entries have to be treated as that of 'Mana'. The Committee has, therefore, erred in relying upon the entries of 'Mane' and 'Mani' to reject the claim.” 8. As there was no concept of recognizing Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of giving benefits and concession prior to 1950, therefore, there is no question of raising any doubt while appreciating the probative value of document of the year 1920 or of 1928, wherein the caste of the great grandfather of the petitioner is shown as ‘Mana’. 9. In view of judgment in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 513 , the Government Resolutions dated 24/4/1985, 19/06/1985 and 15/06/1995 on the basis of which ‘Mana’ community was sought to be divided artificially into different categories, like Badwaik Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’, ‘Gond Mana’, ‘Mani’/ ‘Mane’, etc., for the grant of benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes, did not survive. Thus, it is prohibited to interpret caste/tribe entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes) order. Thus, it is prohibited to interpret caste/tribe entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes) order. If there are numerous documents containing different kinds of entries of caste /tribe like ‘Mana’, Mane’, ‘Mani’, ‘Mana Kunbi’ etc., it has to be seen that which one is the oldest and dominant entry having greater probative value and committee ought to have recorded specific finding of conclusive nature as to whether other entries can be construed as ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe as held in Gitesh (supra). The interpretation, clarification, explanation of the entries in Scheduled Tribes order is not permitted. The interpretation of the entries in the documents cannot be construed with the interpretation of entry in the Scheduled Tribes Order. 10. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim in spite of various genuine documents being placed on record including documents of pre-independent period and not considered the legal position explicitly clarified by the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. So far as citation relied on by learned Additional Government Pleader, i.e. Priya Gajbe (supra) it appears that it is pronounced on 22/12/2018. It also appears that none of the parties have brought to the notice of the Court’s, judgment in Gitesh (passed on 02/07/2018), Mrunal Urkude along with 9 other petitions (supra) (passed on 30/08/2018), Manisha Dadmal (passed on 30/08/2018) in which consistent view is taken. The Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot take different/contrary stand in two similar matters. In the matter of Priya Gajbe (supra) statement was made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that in Vidharbha Region there exists a Mana Caste which is non-trible and there is a vast distinction between this Mana Caste and Mana which is recognized as scheduled tribe. It is also submitted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, this Mana Caste is subcaste /caste of Kunbi, type of non-agricultural caste do not bear any affinity with ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe whereas in the matter of Gitesh Narendra Ghormare (supra) in reply to specific question put to learned Assistant Government Pleader, by Court, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that there is no separate caste or tribe by name ‘Mana Kunbi’ included in the list of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class or Special Backward Category in the State of Maharashtra. Thus, it is not open to the Committee to interpret entries as held in the above referred citations. 11. Thus, it is not open to the Committee to interpret entries as held in the above referred citations. 11. So far as application of affinity test, by the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, in view of judgment in Anand (supra) it is not justified. Affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and not to be used as a sole criteria to reject the claim. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, ‘a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, 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. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe’. 12. The birth extract of Dhondba Mana – great grandfather is of 23/07/1928 and there was specific remark by the Vigilance Cell that the original register is in mutilated condition and the said letter informing the condition of the register is annexed. So far as copy of sale-deed is concerned, the entries are verified and found correct. In both these documents the caste of great grandfather and great great grandfather is recorded as ‘Mana’. Therefore, dominant entry in oldest document of 1920, having great probative value and as such in view of judgment in Gitesh (supra) there is no reason to discard these documents though in some of the documents of cousin relations, the caste is recorded as ‘Kunbi’, or ‘Mani’. Observation made by the Scrutiny Committee that the register was not available on the face of it, is incorrect, in view of the remark of the Vigilance Cell. Though register was there but was in mutilated condition, the Scrutiny Committee incorrectly observed that there was no register in respect of birth entry. 13. Coming to the decision in Purushottam Bhagwan Gaikwad (supra) the facts indicate that the grant of validity certificate to the respondent No.3 therein was challenged. The Scrutiny Committee without conducting the vigilance enquiry had issued the validity certificate after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Application No. 5270/2004. 13. Coming to the decision in Purushottam Bhagwan Gaikwad (supra) the facts indicate that the grant of validity certificate to the respondent No.3 therein was challenged. The Scrutiny Committee without conducting the vigilance enquiry had issued the validity certificate after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Application No. 5270/2004. It was held that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not direct issuance of validity certificate without holding an enquiry of the Vigilance Cell. In the present case there has been an enquiry by the Vigilence Cell. We have therefore independently considered the correctness of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee irrespective of the issuance of validity certificate to the blood relatives of the petitioner since no Vigilance Cell enquiry was held in their cases. Hence, the ratio of the decision referred to by the learned Additional Government Pleader does not apply to the case in hand. 14. As such the petitioner duly established her claim of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating claim of the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Other challenge is to validity of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled caste and Tribe, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Categories (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificates Rules, 2003. So far as validity of these Sections are concerned, it is not argued by the counsel for petitioner and therefore, no decision is rendered in relation to that challenge. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER (i) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 22.06.2018 is set aside. It is held that the petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe which is Entry No.18 in the Scheduled Tribes Order. (ii) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the production of this order. (iii) The respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall take necessary consequential steps pursuant to this judgment. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.