PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1261 · Decided: 11-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1261
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1261 : 2023 INSC 663
1261
PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBE
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7117 of 2019)
JULY 11, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – MBBS admission – Seat
reserved for Scheduled Tribe – Appellant secured the admission
claiming that she belonged to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe – Claim
invalidated – Documents of pre-Constitution period relied upon by
the appellant  – Probative value of – Held: Documents of the pre-
Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their
ancestors have got the highest probative value – If an applicant is
able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre-
Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community,
there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there
were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order – In the present case,
appellant’s great grandfathers birth record shows the caste as
‘Mana’ – The said document relates to as early as 10.03.1924, while
another document of 14.04.1926 shows the caste as ‘Mani’,
however, there is no caste named ‘Mani’ – It is possible that there
could be some mistake in writing the caste as the original record
was written in Marathi and not in English – No reason to discard
the pre-Constitutional document of the period as early as 1924 –
Order of the Scrutiny Committee and High Court quashed and set
aside – Appellant belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe – Social Status
Certificate.
Social Status Certificate – Scheduled Tribe – Affinity Test –
Held: Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for
establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe – Claim
by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be
disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his
tribe’s peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc. –
Though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim –
Education/Educational Institutions.
Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State
of Maharashtra and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 326;
Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC 113 : [2011] 15
SCR 386 – relied on.
Ku. Yogita v. State of Maharashtra and Others Writ
Petition No. 6103 of 2010 decided on 15.09.2016 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 15 SCR 38
relied on
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7117 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.996 of 2018.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv. for the Appellant.
Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Gaurav Agrawal, Kunal Cheema,
Mohan M Sudame, Akshaya M. Sudame, Mrs. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi,
Shivam Dube, Raghav Deshpande, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Application for intervention is allowed.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 22nd December
2018, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging
the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Kokan Division, Thane (for short, ‘the Scrutiny Committee’)
dated 12th December 2017, thereby invalidating the claim of the appellant
that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.
3. The appellant is a student having secured admission in the first
year of MBBS Degree Course in Respondent No.4/ College during the
Academic Year 2016-17 against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1263
The appellant claimed that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. As
such, her case was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee by order dated 12th December 2017 invalidated the claim of
the appellant on the following grounds:-
i.
The appellant failed to satisfy the Affinity Test conducted
during the vigilance inquiry.
ii.
The appellant failed to prove that she originally belongs to
an area where the people of Mana Scheduled Tribe reside.
4. We have heard Shri Sudhanshu Choudhari, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Shri Shrirang B. Varma, learned counsel
appearing for the State of Maharashtra and Shri Kunal Cheema, learned
counsel 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.