Bombay High Court
Rajendra Pandurangji Wankhade vs Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, ... on 1 October, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:10268-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2025
Ku. Anushka Rajendra Wankhade,
Aged about 18 years, Occ.- Student,
R/o. Pathrot, Dist. Amravati.
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal, Through its Vice-Chairman,
Office at Sai Uttam Villa, Near Rangoli
Ground, Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal.
2) District Collector,
Washim District, Washim.
.... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2024
Rajendra Pandurangji Wankhade,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ.- Presently working as Assistant
Teacher in Swaroop Singh High School,
Pathrot, Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati,
R/o. Pathrot, Dist. Amravati. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
Judgment 2 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
1) Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal, Through its Vice-Chairman,
Office at Sai Uttam Villa, Near Rangoli
Ground, Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal.
2) Swaroop Singh High School, Pathrot,
Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati,
Through its Head Master. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandeep Marathe, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. Kavita Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16.09.2025.
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.10.2025
JUDGMENT :(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.
2. As both the Petitioners are blood relatives, both the Petitions are taken up to decide together by a common judgment.
3. Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.721/2025 are as under :
4. The Petitioner - Ku. Anushka Rajendra Wankhade, by this petition is challenging the order dated 09/12/2024, passed by the Judgment 3 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt Respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short the "Scrutiny Committee"), thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional (S.T.) Order 1950.
5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that on 20/01/2024, the Petitioner submitted an application along with the 16 documents supporting her claim to the "Thakur" Schedule Tribe, before the Scrutiny Committee, through the Principal, Amarsingh Kanisht Mahavidylaya, Pathrot for verification, out of which almost 9 documents are from pre-independence showing her ancestors as "Thakur". Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee called a report from Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted it's report on 28/10/2024. The Vigilance Cell has given its remark that the land sale purchase transactions done by the grand father of the Petitioner as they belong to Scheduled Tribe was not disclosed. It is alleged that the Vigilance Cell has not conducted any inquiry and submitted it's report on the basis of inquiry conducted earlier while verifying her father's Tribe Claim and Validity. The Petitioner submitted her reply to the said Report on 26/11/2024, in which she has contended that the Judgment 4 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt Vigilance Cell has not doubted the pre-independence documents but only submitted that it was unable to verify them.
6. Among the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her caste claim, following are the documents of pre- independence period :
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Sale Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur Thakur 02.03.1918
(Great-grandfather of Petitioner)
2 Agreement of Sale by Purnaji Raoji Thakur Thakur 08.07.1921
3 Sale Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur Thakur 26.01.1937
4 Lease Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur 27.07.1939
Thakur
5 Extract of Birth Register of Purnaji Raoji Thakur 27.08.1934
Thakur gave birth a female child Kamla
Purnaji Thakur
6 School Extract of Pandurang Purnaji Thakur 20.04.1937
7 Lease Deed of Purnaji Raoji Thakur Thakur 20.05.1945
7. The Petitioner has also contended that the Respondent Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim on the basis of area restriction mentioning that the Petitioner failed to show that her ancestors are migrant from five districts i.e., Pune, Ahmednagar, Thane, Nashik and Colaba before cancellation of area restriction.
Judgment 5 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
8. Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.5815/2024 are as under :
9. By this Petition, the Petitioner - Rajendra Pandurangji Wankhade is challenging the order dated 06/09/2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional (S.T.) Order 1950.
10. It is contention of the Petitioner that in the year 1999, he got appointment as an 'Assistant Teacher' in Respondent No.2 - Swaroop Singh High School, Pathrot on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In the year 2013, the Respondent No.2 directed the Petitioner to submit his caste validity certificate issued by competent authority. In view of directions, the Petitioner had submitted the caste certificate along with 14 documents supporting his claim to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The Respondent No.2 forwarded the proposal of the Petitioner for verification on 11/06/2013. Out of 14 documents, some documents are pre- independence related to the Sale-deeds executed by his grandfather Purnaji Raoji Thakur in the year 1918, a copy of School Certificate and T.C. of his father of the year 1931 mentioning his caste as Judgment 6 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt "Thakur and Birth Certificate of Kamla Purnaji Thakur of the year 1934 and mutation entries of his grandfather of the year 1937.
11. The Respondent Scrutiny Committee called a report from Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and submitted it's report on 30/05/2016. The Research Officer had given his remark that the entries into Government Record shows the Petitioner's caste as "Thakur". Despite of receipt of Police Vigilance Report in the year 2016, the Respondent Committee did not took any steps and in February 2022 called the Petitioner to submit his say on the report. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 14/03/2022 and contended that considering the pre-independence entries into the Government record of his ancestors showing their caste as "Thakur", Caste Validity Certificate be issued in his favour. Thereafter, the Respondent Committee on 05/08/2024 serve upon the Petitioner a fresh Police Vigilance Cell Report. In the said Vigilance Report, the Police Officer and Research Officer had recorded their opinion exactly opposite to that mentioned in the earlier Vigilance Report of the year 2016. The respondent-Committee has drawn a conclusion that the name in the documents is inserted subsequently. There is an interpolation of the record. Though there is an entry in the Register of the year 1931 as a "Thakur", it was not supported by an Affidavit submitted by his Judgment 7 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt parents and accordingly mentioned that this entry is unreliable. The Petitioner filed his reply on 20/08/2024 to the Vigilance Report and submitted that Vigilance Cell report of the year 2016 was based upon the verification of the documents available in the Nagar Parishad Karanja and at the relevant time the Vigilance Cell has not recorded any observation that the documents are soiled/worn out and are not readable.
12. The Petitioner submitted that subsequently on 04/09/2024 he was present before the Committee during the course of hearing and filed an application for filing three documents i.e. sale-deed and lease-deed executed by his grandfather Purnaji Raoji Thakur of the period of 1918, 1921 and 1939, whereas the caste mentioned as "Thakur", but the Respondent Committee refused to accept the said documents. Due to delay in deciding his caste claim, the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.5090/2023 before this Court for directions to the Respondent Committee to decide his claim at earliest and to issue validity certificate. This Court vide order dated 17/08/2023 directed the Respondent Committee to decide the claim of the Petitioner within a period of 6 months. Despite this, the Respondent Committee did not take any heed to the order of this Court, therefore the Petitioner again filed a Contempt Petition Judgment 8 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt No.223/2024 before this Court. In pursuance to the notice issued in the Contempt petition the Respondent Committee rejected the claim of the Petitioner by impugned order dated 06/09/2024, which is challenged in this writ petition.
13. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the following Citations:
(i) Yogesh, Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., arising out of SLP (C) No.27410/2024, dated 12/08/2025;
(ii) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113;
(iii) Writ Petition No.3421/2022, Gopal Krishnarao Dondadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. , dated 15/04/2024 and
(iv) Writ Petition No. 6084/2023, Suresh S/o Supadu Salunke Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 09/04/2025.
14. As against this, the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee, in both the Writ Petitions while rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner contended that, the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 contemplates as per the provision of Section 8, burden squarely is on the Petitioner/applicant, who claims to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, she has to establish and prove that her claim is genuine.
Judgment 9 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
15. It is stated by the Respondent Scrutiny Committee that, Petitioner has submitted the oldest document of year 1918 and 1934 showing caste entry as 'Thakur'. These are single entry document and no corroborative document is placed on record by the Petitioner and no other corroborative document was procured in Vigilance Cell. The entry in respect of 27/08/1934, the authenticity of documents not proved in the vigilance enquiry. In the vigilance enquiry, it is found that name of born child namely 'Kamla' is written later on and Nagar Parishad Karanja addressed by a communication to the Vigilance Officer that the said record is in torn and dilapidated condition. The entry of 27/08/1934, the Vigilance Officer expressed doubt as well as the document dated 26/01/1937 the sale deed of her great grandfather, the Scrutiny Committee contended that the Registrar Akola communicated that the said document is not available in the record.
16. Following documents are procured by the Vigilance Cell during its inquiry:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Record of Right (Fer-Far) Fer-Far No. -- 15.03.1992
236/ 1992 Tahsil Office Karanja in
the name of Pandurang Purnaji
Wankhede (Grandfather)
2 Record of Right (Fer-Far) Fer-Far No. -- 15.03.1992
321/1992 Tahsil Office Karanja in
Judgment 10 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
the name of Pandurang Purnaji
Wankhede (Grandfather)
3 Record of Right (Fer-Far) Fer-Far No. -- 15.03.1992
322/1992 Tahsil Office Karanja in
the name of Pandurang Purnaji
Wankhede (Grandfather)
17. As per the Respondent Committee, on perusal of the relevant Fer-Far, it revealed that, the grandfather of Petitioner executed the sale-deed with Muslim Community person. The relevant 7/12 extract shows that there is no mention of section 36(A) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. So also at the time of execution of sale-deed the grandfather of Petitioner has not mentioned that he is a person belonging to Tribal community. The Respondent Committee submitted that the invalidation order is correct appreciation of facts and there is no needs of interference.
18. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the original record produced by the Assistant Government Pleader of Caste Scrutiny Committee and considered the citations relied on by the Petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the family tree is reproduced as under:
Judgment 11 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
19. The petitioners relied on the old documents of 1918, 1921, 1934, 1937, 1939 and 1945. The Scrutiny Committee rejected all the documents placed on record by the petitioners, which are consistently showing 'Thakur' entry against the names of forefathers of the petitioners.
20. If the document dated 02/03/1918 is perused, which is at page 145 of the record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, it can be seen that it is a registered document of sale deed executed between Purnaji Raoji Thakur and Ambadas Punjaji Saitwal. There is a seal of Sub-Registrar, Karanja. The endorsement dated 20/04/2016 (Pg.162 of R & P) on the letter of Vigilance Cell given by Sub- Registrar-II, Akola, it was informed that the said document is registered at Sr.No.243/1918, Volume No.73, which is in worn out condition and therefore it is not possible to issue its certified copy. However, somehow, to discard the claim of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee held that the document is not available on record of Sub-Registrar. Therefore, it has no evidentiary value.
21. So far as document dated 08/07/1921-rent agreement and the document dated 26/01/1937-sale deed are concerned, these are registered documents. But the Scrutiny Committee wrongly observed that on verification of these documents from the Sub-
Judgment 12 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt Registrar-II, Akola, it appears that these documents are not found and therefore, certified copies cannot be supplied. On perusal of the documents of 1921 and 1937, it appears that the said documents were executed and duly registered at Sub-Registrar Office Karanja. It also appears that Purnaji Raoji Thakur, who is the great grandfather of the petitioners, was the party to those documents. Though the documents proved that they were executed and registered at Sub- Registrar, Karanja, the Scrutiny Committee erroneously discarded the same.
22. By way of reply, the present petitioners pointed out that in the report of earlier vigilance dated 13/05/2016, there was no objection to these documents. On the contrary, it was mentioned in the report that documents were verified from original and take out such entries. There is nowhere mention of any doubt. On the contrary, it is mentioned that as per verified document entries of forefathers of the petitioners as Thakur. However, the Scrutiny Committee directed second vigilance enquiry.
23. The document of birth register dated 27/08/1934, wherein the great grandfather of the petitioners namely Purnaji Thakur gave birth to a female child namely Kamla. This document is also discarded by the Scrutiny Committee. It has been admitted that Judgment 13 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt the name of Kamla is appearing in the family tree, however the Scrutiny Committee observed that the name of Kamla is entered subsequently. Moreover, this document is also discarded on the ground that it is not available on record of Nagar Parishad Karanja (Lad). It is in worn out condition.
24. We have perused the record of the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, it is apparent on page 36 that there is certificate issued by Nagar Parishad Karanja (Lad), District Washim, wherein it is certified that there is an entry of daughter born to Purnaji Raoji Thakur namely Kamla Purnaji Thakur, date of birth was 27/08/1934. It is of intent form and the Authorities tick marked to the document and passed remark that the same is in dilapidated condition and that the document is not available. But it appears that the Scrutiny Committee as per its convenience declared that there was no document on record. If there is no document on record, then how can it be said that it is in dilapidated condition.
25. The entry of Thakur in the School Record of grandfather of the petitioners dated 20/04/1937 is discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the Vigilance Cell passed remark that school affidavit cannot be procured and therefore, it has no evidentiary value. It is surprising that the Scrutiny Committee Judgment 14 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt erroneously discarded this document. In fact, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have accepted the said document of 1937, since it has more probative value. So far as affidavit is concerned, it is parents' affidavit declaring the date of birth of the child, there is no column of caste in the affidavit. Therefore, no question of any comparison with affidavit.
26. So far as the documents i.e. rent agreements dated 27/07/1939 and 20/05/1945, executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur are concerned, it appears that the Sub-Registrar Akola informed the PI Vigilance Cell, Amravati in respect of document dated 20/05/1945 that if the registration number and date is provided, the certified copies will be supplied, whereas in respect of document dated 27/07/1939 the Authority passed remark upon the said document that it is not registered and it is also not on Government indemnity bond. Therefore, it has no evidentiary value. While writing so, it failed to appreciate the remark i.e. 'if registration number and date is given, the document can be supplied, by name it is not traceable'. It is not denied by the Sub-Registrar, Akola that there is no document, but only asked to submit the number and date of the document. Thus, it is clear that it is a registered document with Sub-Registrar, Akola. Therefore, there was no reason to discard that document.
Judgment 15 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
27. So far as entry of 1992 is concerned, there is due explanation by the petitioners that at the relevant time for the medical purposes amount was taken as loan and in exchange thereof, the sale deeds were executed. As the amount could not be refunded, the sale deeds were required to be executed. It was duly pointed out by the petitioner that though there was remark that document is in worn out condition and therefore, copy cannot be delivered in that regard, he has duly pointed out that he is having original copy of sale deed dated 02/03/2018. It was executed on the stamp paper having photo of Pancham George. The copy maintained by the petitioner is in a good condition and therefore, there was no reason to discard the same. Even in respect of agreement dated 08/07/2021, the original document is available with the petitioner. So far as remark against the entry of birth dated 27/08/1934 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is erroneous to say that the name 'Kamla' is entered subsequently without there being any basis. The petitioner is having birth certificate of Kamla. Not only this, in our considered opinion, her name is also appearing in the family tree. Even document in respect of Pandurang Purnaji Wankhade dated 20/04/1937 (date of admission in school), it is submitted that in the school record of Pandurang Purnaji, the caste is mentioned as "Thakur". As such, it appears that the Scrutiny Judgment 16 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt Committee did not consider the old documents of 1918, 1921, 1934, 1937, 1939 and 1945 wherein caste of the forefathers of the petitioners is mentioned as 'Thakur'. All these documents are discarded by the Scrutiny Committee relying on the second vigilance report of 2024, which is carried out almost eight years after the first vigilance enquiry. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously discarded those document for no reasons and recorded perverse and erroneous findings. It has not at all considered the reply filed by the petitioner.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Yogesh, Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. , (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"10. On the perusal of the entry, it is clear to us that the words Koli Mahadev written in the entry are in the same ink and in the same handwriting. Therefore, we find that there could be no scope for interpolation in the said entry. It is further to be noted that on the basis of this pre-Independence entry, the school records of the appellant's father, Madhav Jalba Makalwad and his uncle, Vyankat Jalba Makalwad also show the caste as Koli Mahadev.
11. One of the reasons given by the High Court in not accepting the caste claim of the appellant is that the same is not supported by any validated document. We are informed that it is appellant's father and the appellant who have applied for the first time for validation of their Caste Certificate. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the claim of both, the appellant as well as his father.
Judgment 17 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
12. In view of the pre-Independence document which certifies that the appellant's grandfather, Jalba Malba Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are of the considered opinion that a greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document. However, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said document has been disbelieved."
29. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-22 as under:
"22. It is manifest from the aforeextracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim:
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, Its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant.
Judgment 18 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. 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, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a Scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim."
This citation is relied on in support of the submission of the petitioners that 'affinity test is not a litmus test', specifically when the documents showing tribe as 'Thakur' of the forefathers of the petitioners available on record.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on judgment in Writ Petition No.3421 of 2022 (Gopal Krishnarao Dondadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) (supra), wherein this Court in para-16 observes as under:
"16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and documents on record, to sum up, it clearly reveals that the Judgment 19 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt petitioner in support of his claim has relied on 07 documents of the pre-Constitutional era between the period from 1912 to 1942 i.e. the Revenue Record/Birth Register entries regarding his father, grandfather, and maternal grandfather, wherein the caste of his ancestors was mentioned as 'Thakur'. Therefore, those documents have a greater probative value than the subsequent documents on which the respondent-scrutiny committee has relied."
31. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6084 of 2023 (Suresh S/o Supadu Salunke Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) (supra), wherein this Court held in para-10 as under:
"10. It is trite law that under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, the burden of proof squarely rests on the claimant to substantiate his tribal status. This burden is required to be discharged on the touchstone of the standard of preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, it becomes imperative to scrutinize the approach adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in its assessment of the petitioner's claim. The Committee has adjudicated the claim based on an evaluation of the documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner, in conjunction with the application of the affinity test. As regards the documentary evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the pre-independence era document i.e. School Leaving certificate in Form No.6 of his father Supadu Namdeo Thakur, which mentioned the date of birth as 10/08/1930 and date of admission in the school as 07/10/1936. This document specifically recorded the religion and caste as Hindu Thakur. This was a document of highest probative value and was very crucial in deciding the Judgment 20 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt petitioner's tribe claim. The committee has referred to this document in paragraph No.6(A) of its decision. however, has discarded the document by simply mentioning that the necessary information about this document was not available. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed copy of this document before the scrutiny committee, which also mentioned the register number of the student as 438 and Book No.11 and thus in view of these details, veracity of this document could have been easily ascertained by the vigilance cell. Pertinently. the vigilance cell enquiry did not at all refer to this document, leave apart any adverse finding about veracity of this document."
32. Thus, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Scrutiny Committee are erroneous, without consideration to the reply filed by the petitioners with whom original copies of sale deed, rent agreement are available and those were on the stamp paper then existing having photograph of 'Pancham George'. As such, only for the sake of discarding the claim of the petitioners at any cost, the Scrutiny Committee directed to conduct the second vigilance enquiry for no reason specifically when 1 st report is in favour of the petitioners, the caste claims of the petitioners are invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.
33. As such, the impugned orders dated 09/12/2024 and 06/09/2024, passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal are liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.
Judgment 21 J-WP No.721.2025+1.odt
34. The writ petitions are allowed.
35. The impugned orders dated 09/12/2024 in Case No.11/502/Edu/012024/68295 and 06/09/2024 in Case No.5-ST/2013/11208, passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal are hereby quashed and set aside.
36. It is declared that the petitioners have duly established their claims that they belong to 'Thakur Scheduled Tribe'. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee Yavatmal is directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners as they belong to 'Thakur Scheduled Tribe' within a period of three weeks.
37. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2025 11:20:28