Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O Ramdas Pawar vs The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate ... on 3 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:11386-DB
WP-985.22-J.odt
1/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Chandrashekhar S/o Ramdas Pawar,
aged 45 years, Occu. Senior Clerk in
District Court Yavatmal, R/o Karanja Lad,
District Washim.
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its Member
Secretary Chaprasipura, Amravati.
2. The Registrar,
District and Sessions Court, Yavatmal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. R. Parsodkar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, AGP for the Respondents-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 03RD NOVEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 2/14
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 20/12/2021, passed by the Respondent No.1- Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as "Caste Scrutiny Committee") thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, which was enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
3. On the basis of the Caste Certificate issued to the Petitioner on 23/06/1993 by the Executive Magistrate, Karanja, District Washim, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on the establishment of the Respondent No.2-District Court, Yavatmal vide order dated 12/03/2001. The tribe claim of the Petitioner was forwarded for scrutiny to the Respondent No.1 through his employer and the Police Vigilance Cell submitted its first report on 30/09/2004.
4. However, the Respondent No.1- Caste Scrutiny Committee did not decide the caste claim of the Petitioner for about 20 years and sought 2nd Police Vigilance report, which was submitted on 29/10/2021, to which the Petitioner submitted his reply. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 20/12/2021, invalidated the KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 3/14 caste claim of the Petitioner of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The said order dated 20/12/2021 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
5. The Petitioner has submitted the following pre- independence documents in support of his tribe claim:-
Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date No. Tribe 1 School Entry of Sadashiv Thakur 16/12/1932 Ramchandra (Grandfather) 2 Birth Extract of Ganpat showing his Thakur 30/05/1944 father's name Sadashiv Ramchandra.
3 School Extract of Raghunath; Thakur 28/06/1945 another son of Sadashiv 4 Birth Entry of daughter of Himmat Thakur 02/10/1919 (Cousin Grandfather) 5 Birth Entry of son of Himmatrao ---- 24/08/1924 (Cousin Grandfather) 6 Birth Entry of daughter of Thakur 16/03/1935 Himmatrao (Cousin Grandfather) 7 Birth Entry of daughter of Thakur 01/07/1945 Himmatrao (Cousin Grandfather)
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following citations:
(i) Writ Petition No. 4061/2018 (Ms. Swati Krushnarao Hedaoo v. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and another), decision dated 10/07/2023, KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 4/14
(ii) Prakesh s/o Shrawan Deore v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 461,
(iii) Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113, &
(iv) Civil Appeal No. 2336/2011 (Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., order dated 08/03/2017.
8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1-Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner by strongly relying upon the documents, which were randomly procured by the Vigilance Cell during the investigation, which were belonging to strangers and not at all related to the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that Respondent No.1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee has wrongly and illegally relied upon the documents, which were not related to the Petitioner and invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 20/12/2021, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. In its reply, the Respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee submits that the following documents were procured by the Vigilance Cell during inquiry, which are adverse to the claim of the Petitioner:
KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 5/14 Sr. Document Name Relationship Caste Date No. type with the Petitioner 1 Birth A male Grandfather of Bhat 07/07/1917 Record child born Great Great to Bapu Grandfather 2 Birth A male Cousin Great Bhat 12/12/1921 Record child born Great to Himmat Grandfather 3 Birth A male Great Great Bhat 04/02/1926 Record child born Grandfather to Sheshya 4 Birth A female Cousin Great Bhat 13/03/1930 Record child born Great to Grandfather Himmatrao Pawar 5 Birth A male Cousin Great Bhat 12/06/1931 Record child born Great to Bapu Grandfather 6 Birth A male Cousin Great Bhat 19/11/1938 Record child born Great to Bapu Grandfather 7 Birth A male Grandfather Bhat 01/04/1941 Record child born to Bapu
10. The Respondent No.1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee contended that the word 'Thakur' has different meaning such as, in respect of caste, tribe and title given to high caste people, therefore 'Thakur' entries in the documents do not always speak of one's socio- cultural affinity and social status. Further, the Respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee contended that in the Petitioner's case, the oldest entry was found to be recorded as 'Bhat' in the year 1917, KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 6/14 relying upon which, the tribe claim of the Petitioner came to be rejected/invalidated by the impugned order dated 20/12/2021.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record and proceedings produced by the Respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of learned AGP and considered the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
12. For the sake of convenience, the family tree of the Petitioner is reproduced as under:-
13. In the present matter, the claim of the Petitioner was pending for more than 20 years. There was one vigilance enquiry on KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 7/14 30/09/2004, however, it was not decided. The second vigilance enquiry report was sought. The same was submitted on 29/10/2021. The Petitioner has placed on record as many as 7 old documents prior to 1950. The oldest document is of the year 1919. All these entries are showing the tribe as 'Thakur'. The Caste Scrutiny Committee procured seven entries from 1917 to 1941 of 'Bhat'. Insofar as the entry of 1917 procured by the Vigilance Cell is concerned, except the name Bapu, there are no other details to conclude that Bapu is from family of the Petitioner. If the entry procured by the Vigilance Cell in respect of Bapu is seen, it is highly impossible, as the great grand son namely Himatrao Thakur gave birth to a male child on 12/12/1921. Similarly, the third document procured by the Vigilance Cell showing Sheshya as 'Bhat' cannot be accepted, as there is no person by name Sheshya in the family of the Petitioner. Even if Sheshya is written for Sheshrao is considered, Bapu gave birth to Krushnaji Pawar, as per the contention of the Vigilance Cell on 07/07/1917. Then, this Sheshrao born to Krushnaji in 1926 is highly impossible.
14. The Petitioner has duly replied to the Vigilance Cell Report. He has contented that for no reason, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not taken any steps in respect of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 23/06/1993 for more than 20 years. 'Bhat' entries KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 8/14 somewhere against the name of his relatives may be due to their profession. He has placed reliance on Relforence Book namely Adivasi of Maharashtra wherein the language, customs, profession and peculiar characteristics are given. There is reference of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribes' profession wherein three professions are noted i.e.
(i) agriculture, (ii) to sell the forest produce and (iii) singing for bride and groom in the marriage. The Petitioner has also placed on record many entries of 'Thakur' of his blood relatives from the paternal side for the same period. Thus, the entries cannot be disbelieved, as they are also prior to 1950. He has placed on record the entry of 1919 showing that a daughter is born to Himmat, which is the oldest entry. There are entries of 'Thakur' in the documents submitted by the Petitioner.
15. The Petitioner relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 4061/2018 (supra) in support of his contention that since Sheshya and Bapu are not in the family tree of the Petitioner, the Caste Scrutiny Committee unnecessarily connected the said persons as relatives of the Petitioner. Therefore, this finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not sustain in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, there are other documents showing the tribe as 'Thakur'. KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 9/14
16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment in Prakesh s/o Shrawan Deore (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraph No. 12, held as under:-
"12. No doubt that the learned AGP relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Thakur (supra) that the claim cannot be decided only on the basis of the documentary evidence but the affinity test also plays an important role. However, it is to be noted that the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Shilpa Thakur is dated 7th May, 2009, whereas the judgement of Anand Kathole is delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 8th November, 2011. In the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and anr. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and ors., (2013) 10 SCC 95. the Hon'ble Apex Court has frowned upon the practice of lawyers citing multiple judgments in support of a proposition of law. Any sincere student of law, leave aside a practising lawyer, who has put a number of years at the bar, is expected to know that the judgment of High Court, including the judgments delivered by the Full Bench, which has taken a view, which is contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court, subsequently, the earlier judgment stands impliedly overruled. We do not understand the propriety in citing the judgment which is impliedly overruled."
17. It is contented by the Petitioner that the judgment in the case of Shilpa Thakur is held as impliedly overruled by the judgment KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 10/14 in Anand Kathole (supra). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the judgment in Anand Kathole (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down some parameters which could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim, which are reproduced as under:-
"22.(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;
(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 KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 11/14 adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, 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 tribes' 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."
18. The tribe claim of the Petitioner is invalidated on the ground that there are adverse entries and the Petitioner has not established the affinity test with the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the Petitioner is also rejected on the ground of area restriction. It was observed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that Thakur Scheduled Tribe used to reside in Thane, Kolaba, Nasik, Ahmednagar & Pune.
19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 12/14 "The short point raised by learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that after 'The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976' (Act No.108 of 1976) was published in the Gazette on 20.09.1976, the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra for the Thakur community has been deleted and all members of Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur and Ma Thakar community are treated to be Scheduled Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of the appellants on the ground that the relatives of the appellants were not residents of the areas mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1956 and further they were not able to give any details of customs and traditions being observed by the said community.
In our considered opinion, that is wholly irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish that they belong to community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976"
20. It needs to be noted here that in the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in Paragraph No. 3, a finding is recorded that the documents produced at Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 are duly verified and there appears entry of 'Thakur'. Thus, it can be seen that the Petitioner has produced many entries prior to 1950 in support of the claim that his forefathers were 'Thakur'.
KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 13/14
21. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip Pawar (supra), it is observed that the Appellants have only to establish that they belong to the community mentioned at Serial No. 44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of Act No. 108 of 1976. The area restriction is not in existence in view of the 1976 amendment Act. There are documentary evidence placed on record by the Petitioner showing that the forefathers of the Petitioner were belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
22. Insofar as the entries of 'Bhat' are concerned, in the family tree of the Petitioner, 'Bhat' is mentioned only against the name of Sadashiv Ramchandra, however, his reply to the said entry appears to be not considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In fact, there was no reason to keep this matter pending since 2004 till 2021. There are two vigilance reports. There is no document procured in the earlier vigilance cell showing the entry of 'Bhat'. It appears that the documents procured by the second vigilance was only to invalidate the tribe claim of the Petitioner. As such, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner is perverse, erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same needs to be quashed and set aside, so also, the services of the Petitioner is required to be protected.
KHUNTE/ANSARI WP-985.22-J.odt 14/14
23. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The order dated 20/12/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case No. A.M./5-ST-
2001/10002 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is declared that the Petitioner has duly established that he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The Respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue the validity certificate to the Petitioner, as he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks.
(d) The Petitioner can rely on the copy of this judgment until the validity certificate is issued to him. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J) KHUNTE/ANSARI