Absence of baptismal evidence precludes finding of religious conversion for purpose of Scheduled Caste status.

The Petitioner, a 19-year-old student, sought validation of his caste claim as 'Mang' (Scheduled Caste, Sr. No. 46).

He submitted historical documents including School Leaving Certificates of his great-grandfather (1932) and other relatives (1934) recording the caste as 'Mang'.

A paternal relative, Prabhakar Sathe, already held a validity certificate.

However, the Respondent No. 2 (Scrutiny Committee) invalidated the claim on September 27, 2023, observing that the Petitioner’s grandfather’s school record (1962) mentioned 'Christian' and neighbors/witnesses suggested the family professed Christianity.

The Petitioner explained that the 'Christian' entry was a tactical move to avoid caste-based harassment in school and that no formal conversion occurred.

1. Whether the mere entry of "Christian" in a school record or the presence of Christian religious symbols in a household is sufficient to establish conversion and disqualify a candidate from Scheduled Caste status.

2. Whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in discarding pre-constitutional documents and an existing family validity certificate based on suspected conversion without proof of baptism.

The court applied the principle that the burden of proving conversion to another religion lies on the Scrutiny Committee/Vigilance Cell once a prima facie case of original caste is established by pre-constitutional documents.

It relied on *Tejashree Mangilal Dambale v. Scrutiny Committee* regarding the weight of existing family validity certificates.

*Bhanudas Hona Gajbhiv v. State of Maharashtra*, which held that nominal conversion for practical purposes without relinquishing Hindu faith or undergoing formal ceremonies does not strip one of Scheduled Caste benefits.

The court further emphasized the necessity of proving the ceremony of 'Baptism' to establish conversion to Christianity, as seen in *Parvi Ashish Chakravarti v. State of Maharashtra* and *Suvarna v. State of Maharashtra*.

The Court found the Committee's reasoning perverse and arbitrary.

It noted that the Petitioner produced "pre-constitutional" documents from 1932 and 1934 consistently showing the caste as 'Mang'.

The Court observed that the Committee failed to provide evidence of 'Baptism'—the essential sacrament for conversion to Christianity.

Following the precedent in *Kiranlata v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee*, the Court held that wearing a cross, keeping a photograph of Jesus, or a clerical error in a single document (1962) does not override undisputed historical records.

The Court distinguished the Apex Court's ruling in *C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary*, noting that unlike in that case, there was no evidence of Christian marriage rituals or baptismal certificates for the Petitioner or his ancestors.

It declared that the Petitioner duly established his status as belonging to the "Mang" Scheduled Caste.

The Respondent No. 2 was directed to issue the Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner within two months.

Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.