Bombay High Court
Chaitali D/O Ratankumar Madan ... vs The Chairman, District Caste ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:12399-DB
1 WP7243.23 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7243 OF 2023
PETITIONER : Chaitali D/o Ratankumar Madan
(Chaitali W/o Deepak Mulchandani)
Aged about 32 years, Occu. Student,
R/o 103, Swami Regency, Beside
Canara Bank, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : The Chairman,
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Priti Rane, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. Sangita S. Jachak, Addl.G.P. for respondent sole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR and
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.W.Chandwani, J.)
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the respondent - District Caste Certificate 2 WP7243.23 (J).odt Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee"), thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Khatri" Other Backward Class.
3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to 'Khatri' Other Backward Class which is enlisted at Sr. No. 126 as per Government Resolution dated 25.06.2008 published by Notification dated 26.09.2008 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is purusing her education in Ph.D. Therefore, in order to get validity certificate for further education as well as career prospects, the petitioner submitted a proposal to the Committee for validation of her caste certificate. In support of her caste claim, the petitioner submitted various documents belonging to her as well as her blood relatives including her Caste Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, School leaving certificate of her father and her uncles and the caste validity certificates issued to her blood relatives. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Vigilance Cell for vigilance enquiry. Accordingly, a report dated 10.12.2021 was submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the Committee. The Committee, after considering the vigilance report and the documents submitted by the petitioner, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
3 WP7243.23 (J).odt
4. The School Leaving Certificate of the uncle of the petitioner namely Rameshchandra Tarachand date 08.07.1955, was placed before the Committee which mentions the caste 'Khatri'. Another document placed before the Committee was the School Leaving Certificate of another uncle of the petitioner namely, Ramanrayan Tarachand Madan mentioning his caste 'Kshatriya' dated 29.06.1961. Other documents placed before the Committee were the caste validity certificates issued to the real brother and the parental aunt of the petitioner, showing their caste as 'Khatri' Other Backward Class. However, the Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that the caste 'Khatri' is included in the list of Other Backward Class by way of Notification as a sub-caste of 'Patkar'.
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. 4 WP7243.23 (J).odt 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 Class along with the other castes including 'Khatri' by the same notification.
7. Entry No. 126 included by Government Resolution dated 25.06.2008 reads as under :
"१२६. पाटकर, सोमवंशीय सहस्वार्जुन क्षत्रिय, पटवेकरी, पटवेगार, पटेगार, पट्टेगार, पट क्षत्रिय पाटकर, खत्री, क्षत्रिय."
8. In Pranjali Girdhari Baisani (supra), this Court in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 has observed as under :
"9. In the above backdrop, it is necessary to consider as whether the Committee was justified in treating entry "Kshatriya" sub-caste of "Patkar, Somvanshiya Sahastrajun Kshatriya". From the reading of Notification dated 26.09.2008 and Government Resolution dated 5 WP7243.23 (J).odt 25.06.2008, it is clear that entry "Kshatriya" was added as an independent entry at Sr. No. 126 preceded by "comma". The question as to whether the entry in the Government Resolution Notification can be interpreted based on other material is no longer res-integra in view of the two judgments of this Court.
i) Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vasant Pandurang Narwade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported 2002 (1) Mh.LR. 812, in paragraph no.
20 has observed as under :-
"20. The petitioner alongwith other documents, had also submitted a copy of the representation dated 26.05.2000 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra by the Chief Promoter of Marathwada Kunbi Maratha Vikas Mahamandal at Dhamangaon, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. The prayer in this representation was that all the persons belonging to Maratha caste in the Marathwada region should be recognized as Kunbi and they should be issued the caste certificate as belonging to Kunbi caste. This representation has referred to the same gazetteers as relied upon by the petitioner before the scrutiny committee and attempted to suggest that there was no distinction between Marathas and Kunbis and Maratha caste is part and parcel of Kunbi caste. In short, the petitioner's plea was also on the same lines as is made out in the representation submitted to the Chief Minister and though there were certificates in respect of himself, his father and grant father, that all of them belonged to Maratha caste, he should be declared as belonging to Kunbi caste. The Committee rightly held that such a proposition could not be accepted. The committee's jurisdiction was limited to an enquiry whether the petitioner belongs to the Kunbi caste and nothing beyond the same. Even the 6 WP7243.23 (J).odt order passed by the Apex Court remanding the matter for fresh adjudication also goes to show that the committee was required to verify the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to Kunbi caste by giving him a fresh opportunity of submitting evidence documentary and oral. If the petitioner claims that there is no difference between Maratha and Kunbi caste and Maratha caste is part and parcel of Kunbi caste or a synonym of the same, his remedy is before the State Government and it is not within the powers of the scrutiny committee to adjudicate upon the same. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind (supra). While interpreting the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that it was not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community was included in the general name even though it was not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It was not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of, or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. A notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes can be amended only by law to be made by the Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority and it was not open to State Governments or courts or Tribunals or, any other 7 WP7243.23 (J).odt authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342.
What has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Scheduled Tribes must be made equally applicable to the cases of OBCs and it has to be held that it is not open to the committee to modify, amend or alter the list of such classes and it is open only to the State Government, to amend the same by following the necessary procedure and more particularly the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indira Swahney V. Union of India. We may, in this regard, usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Suroshe (supra), wherein it was observed:
"The notification of the President under Article 342 of the Constitution, subject to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1976, is conclusive and final. There are catena of decisions of this Court holding that the Court cannot examine, to find out the caste of the party, the basis of the certificate issued. The limited area the Court can survey is whether the caste mentioned in the presidential Notification would be applicable to the claimant or not."
ii) Another Division Bench in the case of Akshay Santosh Gondhi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 693, in paragraph no. 6 and in particular in the last four lines has reiterated view in the case of Vasant Pandurang Narwade (supra) as under :-
"6. ......... An entry in the list of SC, ST/OBC has to be read as it is and it is settled position of law that the Presidential Notification identifying the said SC/ST or the Notifications issued by the State 8 WP7243.23 (J).odt Government in relation to "other backward class"
are not susceptible of any interpretation and it is not permissible for the Courts to add or delete any of these entries."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98, in paragraph no. 30 has held as under :-
30. The common pattern found in most of the group entries is that there is a punctuation mark comma () between one entry and another entry in the group signifying that each one of them is deemed to be a separate Scheduled Tribe by itself. In the present case, Entry 18 of the Schedule clearly signifies that each of the tribe mentioned therein is deemed to be a separate tribe by itself and not a sub-tribe of "Gond". "Gond" is a Scheduled Tribe, it is not disputed. As already noticed that "Gond" including Arakh or Arrakh, etc. found in Entry 12 of the Amendment Act 63 of 1956 has been done away with by the Amendment Act of 1976. In Entry 18 of the Second Schedule of the Amendment Act of 1976 the word "including" was deliberately omitted, which signifies that each one of the tribes specified in Entry 18 is deemed to be a separate tribe by itself.
Therefore, "Mana" is not a sub-tribe of "Gond" but a separate tribe by itself and is a Scheduled Tribe."
11. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the findings recorded by the Committee in the impugned order that "Kshatriya" is sub-caste of "Patkar Somvanshiya Sahastrajun Kshatriya" is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the above-mentioned judgments. Though as per Government Resolution 9 WP7243.23 (J).odt dated 25.06.2008, the caste "Kshatriya" is shown as sub-tribe, in fact in the Notification dated 26.09.2008, it is not shown as sub-tribe of "Patkar".
9. Thus, in the above decision, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the caste 'Kshatriya' which has been included along with other caste 'Khatri' at Serial No. 126 of the list of Other Bakcward Class is not a sub-caste of 'Patkar'. Since, the claim of the petitioner with regard to 'Khatri' is based on the similar lines as that of 'Khastriya' which is included in the list of Other Backward Class along with 'Khatri' by the same notification, there is no reason for us to take a different view that 'Khatri' which was included in the list of Other Backward Class as per the Notification dated 26.09.2008 at Entry No. 126 along with other castes "Patkar, Somwanshiya, Sahastrarjun Kshatriya, Pategar, Pattegar, Kshatriya Patkar, Khatri, Kshatriya", cannot be treated as a sub-caste of 'Patkar'.
10. In wake of the decision of this Court in Pranjali Girdhari Baisani (supra), we are of the considered view that the finding recorded by the Committee is contrary to Entry No. 126 of the Other Backward Class included in Government Resolution dated 25.06.2008 published in Notification dated 26.09.2008. Therefore, the impugned order of invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner passed by the 10 WP7243.23 (J).odt Committee is required to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
i] The impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the respondent - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
ii] It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to 'Khatri' Other Backward Class.
iii] The respondent - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner within two weeks from today.
iv] A copy of this order can be relied upon for all purposes to show that the petitioner belongs to 'Khatri' Other Backward Class, till the Caste Validity Certificate is issued.
v] The record and proceedings of the case be returned to the respondent - Committee.
12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(M.W.CHANDWANI, J.) (SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J.) Diwale Signed by: DIWALE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/11/2025 18:24:01