Bombay High Court
Madhusudan S/O Veeranna Gajarlawar vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:6591-DB
Judgment 1 wp7498.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7498/2019
Madhusudan S/o Veeranna
Gajarlawar, Aged About
62 years, Occ. Retired
Government Servant (As Senior
Grade Clerk), R/o. Plot No. 24,
Virchakra Colony, Near
Hanuman Mandir, Katol Road,
Nagpur-13 .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry
of Tribal Welfare and Social
Justice, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
400032.
(2) District Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
District, Nagpur, through its
Chairman.
(3) Commandant,
State Reserve Police Force,
Group No. IV, Hingna Road, .....RESPONDENT(S)
Nagpur.
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for the Petitioner(s)
Ms. Mrunal Naik, AGP for the Respondent/State
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
..𝓐..
Judgment 2 wp7498.19.odt
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- MARCH 23, 2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- APRIL 28, 2026
JUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) . RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 04/09/2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner of belonging to 'Kshatriya' Other Backward Class which was included in the list of OBC by Government Resolution dated 25th June, 2008. (3) The Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 30.07.1982 and he retired as Senior Clerk, upon attaining the age of superannuation on 25.07.2016 from the Respondent No. 3
- Institution. It is stated by the Petitioner that he never claimed or availed any benefit as a Schedule Tribe/OBC candidate while he was in service.
..𝓐..
Judgment 3 wp7498.19.odt
(4) Initially, the Petitioner has obtained a Caste
Certificate of 'Chattri' Schedule Tribe dated 18/02/1981, the same was forwarded for verification and the Schedule Tribe Committee, vide its order dated 21.10.2014, invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner.
(5) Following are the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of his claim belonging to Kshatriya OBC:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date No. 1 School Leaving Certificate of the Telegu Kshatriya 13/01/1976 Petitioner 2 School Leaving Certificate of G. Kshatriya Telagu 06/07/1940 N. Viranna S/o M. Narsing Rao 3 Transfer Certificate of G.N. Kshatriya 10/05/1952 Madhorao (6) The Respondent No. 2 issued show-cause notice dated 08/05/2019 and asked the Petitioner to remain present for hearing, following which the Petitioner remained present for hearing and submitted his written explanation/reply on 16/06/2019. However, the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner on 04/09/2019.
..𝓐..
Judgment 4 wp7498.19.odt
(7) Learned Counsel for Petitioner, in support of his
contentions, relied upon the following citations:
(a) Writ Petition No. 7243/2023, Chaitali D/o Ratankumar Madan vs. The Chairman, District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, judgment dated 14/11/2025;
(b) Writ Petition No. 3587/2022, Pooja d/o. Naresh Lalwani vs. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal & Anr., judgment dated 16/01/2024;
(c) Writ Petition No. 4432/2003, Balayya alias Balraj s/o Hiralal Pagade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., judgment dated 04/04/2016 and
(d) Writ Petition No. 754/2009, Kushwahkant S/o Umakant Wannalwar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., judgment dated 11/06/2018.
(8) Per Contra, learned AGP submits that the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee, in its reply contended that, upon scrutiny of the documents submitted by the ..𝓐..
Judgment 5 wp7498.19.odt Petitioner, it appears that the earlier Caste Certificate of 'Chattri' ST was obtained by the Petitioner through fraud and is granted without jurisdiction, therefore, the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected the caste claim of the Petitioner. (9) Learned AGP for the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee further submitted that as far as the claim of the Petitioner is concerned, the caste 'Kshatriya' is different from the caste 'Patkar' as mentioned in Other Backward Class. The diet, language, traditional occupation, surname of the caste 'Patkar' are entirely different from the Petitioner's caste 'Kshatriya', and therefore, the claim of the Petitioner deserves to be rejected.
(10) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. (11) For the sake of convenience, the family tree of the Petitioner is reproduced as under:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 6 wp7498.19.odt
(12) The oldest document submitted by the Petitioner is a
School Leaving Certificate of his father Shri G.V. Viranna (Annexure J) which reflects the caste as 'Kshatriya Telagu'. The Learned AGP contended that caste 'Kshatriya Telagu' is entirely different from the caste mentioned in the Other Backward Classes list of the Maharashtra State at Sr. No. 126. However, it is a settled position of law that 'Telagu' is a language and not a caste and 'Kshatriya' is a separate caste enlisted in the OBC list at Sr. No. 126. In this regard, learned counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4432 of 2003 (decided on 04.04.2016), wherein this Court held in para 8 as under:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 7 wp7498.19.odt "8. Division Bench of this Court in judgment in case of Anil Ramdas Mede vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), in paragraph no. 7 noted that Telgu is not a caste, but, official language declared under VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. In said judgment the Division Bench has also in the light of undisputed documents found it would not be proper to rely upon the vigilance cell report."
(13) This issue is further discussed in another judgment of this Court, and relied on by the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 754 of 2009 (decided on 11.06.2018) wherein this Court in para 13 held as under:
"13. This Court has in few matters in such circumstances taken note of the fact that Telgu then recorded did not indicate caste or tribe but it was language."
(14) There is another undisputed document which is a Transfer Certificate of G.N. Madhorao (Uncle of the Petitioner) which shows the caste as 'Kshatriya' (Annexure K), however this document was not considered at all by the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee. This Court believes that the old documents which apparently shows the caste as 'Kshatriya' ought to be ..𝓐..
Judgment 8 wp7498.19.odt considered by the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee. This was also reiterated in the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 4432 of 2003 (supra), wherein in para 11 it is held as under:
"11. However, as two old documents i.e. of 20.06.1924 and 08.04.1941 are found to be genuine, it is apparent that caste as recorded therein deserves to be given precedence."
(15) On perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report at Page No. 47 of the Petition, it can be seen that the Vigilance Cell itself recorded that the documents submitted by the Petitioner neither contain any scribbling, nor do they appear to be overwritten or written in a different ink. This shows that the Vigilance Cell itself has admitted the genuineness of the documents submitted by the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court fails to understand why those documents were not given precedence and considered by the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee. (16) Further, the Vigilance Inquiry Report dated 31/12/2018 contains a statement recorded from the neighbours of the Petitioner who contended that they recognize the Petitioner and his family as 'Telagu' speaking Kshatriyas whose ..𝓐..
Judgment 9 wp7498.19.odt forefathers were migrated from Andhra Pradesh. It is further observed by the Vigilance Cell in its inquiry that the Petitioner and his forefathers appear to have been residing in Maharashtra since 1940 and people know them as belonging to Kshatriya caste. It is pertinent to note here that these findings of the Vigilance Cell were blatantly and conveniently ignored by the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee.
(17) Furthermore, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 08/05/2019 and the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee sought explanation regarding the documents showing caste as 'Telagu Kshatriya/Kshatriya Telagu', among other things. To this, the Petitioner submitted his written explanation/reply dated 16/06/2019, wherein he explained that his caste is 'Kshatriya' and 'Telagu' is a language. However, the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee did not pay any heed to this reply as well and invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner.
(18) So far as the earlier Caste Certificate of 'Chattri' Schedule Tribe obtained by the Petitioner on 18/02/1981 is concerned, the same was forwarded to the Respondent - Caste ..𝓐..
Judgment 10 wp7498.19.odt Scrutiny Committee for granting caste validity certificate and it was invalidated by the Respondent - Committee vide its order dated 21/10/2014. There is no such precedent that once a caste claim is invalidated, the Petitioner cannot claim caste validity certificate of another caste. Further, so far as the service book extract of the Petitioner obtained by the Vigilance Cell, showing caste as 'Chattri' is concerned, we are of the opinion that the term 'Chattri' is similar in writing and pronunciation to both 'Khatri' and 'Kshatriya' and it could be a genuine mistake on the part of the employer. We are also of the opinion that a single adverse entry cannot be the basis of rejection of caste claim, especially when there are other old documents which rightly shows the caste as claimed by the Petitioner. (19) Furthermore, on perusal of Government Resolution dated 25/06/2008, it can be seen that 'Khatri' and 'Kshatriya' were newly added as an independent caste in the list of OBC at Sr. No. 126, and it is not a sub-caste of 'Patkar'. The said entry at Serial No. 126 reads as under:-
"126. पाटकर 10[सोमवंशीय सहस्त्रार्जुन क्षत्रिय, पटवेकरी, पटवेगार, पटेगार, पट्टेगार, पटवी, क्षत्रिय पाटकर], 19[खात्री, क्षत्रिय]"
..𝓐..
Judgment 11 wp7498.19.odt
(20) The above said entry is reflected in the judgment of
this Court and relied on by the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 7243 of 2023 (decided on 14.11.2025), wherein this Court in paras 5 and 6 held as under:
"5. Undisputedly, the petitioner does not belong to 'Patkar' caste but the contention is that, an entry in the list of Other Backward Class shows 'Khatri' as an independent caste and not as a sub-caste of 'Patkar'. The contention has been opposed by the learned AGP. In support of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pranjali Girdhari Baisani .vs. District Caste Scrutiny Committee and others in Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2019 (Bench at Nagpur).
6. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP, we have gone through the record as well as the judgment in Pranjali Girdhari Baisani (supra). On going through the judgment in Pranjali Girdhari Baisani (supra), we are of the opinion that the issue has been squarely covered by the said decision wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the matter in detail in respect of the entry of 'Kshatriya' caste which was included in the list of Other Backward ..𝓐..
Judgment 12 wp7498.19.odt Class along with the other castes including 'Khatri' by the same notification."
(21) As such, the impugned order passed by the Respondent - Caste Scrutiny Committee is patently erroneous, perverse and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 04/09/2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Caste Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in Case No. tk-dz-fttkizi/ iz-dz-lsok/lferh fu.kZ;/2019-20/1900 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is held and declared that the Petitioner has duly established that he belongs to "Kshatriya" Other Backward Class.
(d) The Respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner certifying that he belongs to "Kshatriya"
Other Backward Class, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. ..𝓐..
Judgment 13 wp7498.19.odt Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) ..𝓐..