Bombay High Court
Radhika D/O Sanjay Hedau vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. Scrutiny ... on 18 February, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:3010-DB
WP-6431.17-J.odt
1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6431 OF 2017
Radhika D/o Sanjay Hedau,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o Swami Samarth Apartment,
Vivekanand Colony, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member-Secretary and Deputy Director,
Sanna Building, Opp. Govt. Rest House,
Camp Amravati - 444 601.
2) The Chancellor (Education),
Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
Amravati, through its Registrar,
Tah. and Dist. Amravati..
3) P. R. Pote (Patil)
Education and Welfare Trust
Group of Institution College of
Engineering and Management
(Integrated Campus),
Through its Principal,
Kathora Road, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
Res. No.4 is 4) The Director of Medical Education
deleted as
per Court
and Research, St. George Hospital
order dt. Compound, Government Dental
20.12.2017
College Building, Fourth Floor,
Near Chhatrapati Shivaji
Terminus (CST) Mumbai-1.
KIRTAK / KHUNTE
WP-6431.17-J.odt
2/21
Res. Nos.4 & 5 4) The Additional Tribal Commissioner,
are added as
per Court's
Chaprashipura, Behind Police
order dt. Commissioner Office, Amravati- 444 604.
20.12.2017
5) The Secretary (Cada)
Water resources Department,
Madam Kama Road,
Hutatma Raiguri Square,
Mantralaya, Bombay- 32. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Futane, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 & 4.
Ms. Nazia Pathan, Advocate holding for Mrs. R. S.
Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 22/01/2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 18/02/2026
JUDGMENT :(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent and request of the parties.
2. The Petitioner by this petition is challenging the order dated 21/08/2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the 'Halba/Halbi' KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 3/21 Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 19 in the Constitutional Order, 1950, and further confiscating and cancelling the Caste Certificate, issued to the Petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Achalpur on 18/09/2014. The Petitioner by this Petition is also seeking directions to Respondent No. 4 to accept the Application for GIO Certificate/Freeship Certificate and release the same till the decision of the tribe claim of the Petitioner.
3. The contention of the Petitioner is that she is a student pursuing a Degree in Engineering and her proposal of caste claim, dated 14/09/2015, was forwarded through Principal, P. R. Pote (Patil) College of Engineering and Management to the Respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee. In support of her caste claim, the Petitioner submitted following documents of Pre-constitutional period:
Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date
No. Tribe
1 Copy of Birth and Death Certificate of Halbi 14.08.1939
the Petitioner's Grandfather
2 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of Halbi 01.05.1893
Great Grandfather of Petitioner
3 School Transfer Certificate of Petitioner's Halbi 28.11.1934
Cousin Grandfather
4 Copy of Transfer Certificate of Cousin Halbi 02.04.1948
Grandfather of Petitioner
KIRTAK / KHUNTE
WP-6431.17-J.odt
4/21
5 School Transfer Certificate of Petitioner's Halbi 02.04.1946
Grandfather
6 Copy of School Transfer Certificate of Halbi 06.04.1943
Great Great Cousin Grandfather of
Petitioner
7 Copy of Sale Deed of house belonging to ---- 05.02.1931
Petitioner's Great Great Grandmother.
4. It is further contended that the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 573/2016 before this Court for direction to the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and to protect the admission of the Petitioner in Respondent No. 3 College. This Court, vide its order dated 13/01/2017 directed the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner within a period of three months and protected the admission of the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner further contended that, since the caste claim of the Petitioner was not decided by the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated period, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 121/2017. During the pendency of the said Contempt Petition, the Police Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and submitted its first report to the Respondent No. 1 KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 5/21 Scrutiny Committee on 29/07/2017, whereby the Petitioner was called for hearing by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner appeared before the Police Vigilance Cell and submitted her Explanation/Reply on 31/07/2017. The Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 21/08/2017, invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner and further confiscated and cancelled the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Achalpur.
6. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied upon the following Citations:
(i) Writ Petition No.14991/2019, Subhash Vitthalrao Dhone Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 12/12/2019,
(ii) Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241,
(iii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326,
(iv) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919,
(v) Writ Petition No. 5293/2013, Sanjay s/o Rama Nandanwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. , dated 23/11/2017, KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 6/21
(vi) Writ Petition No. 7256/2024, Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certified Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal with one connected matter, dated 07/08/2025,
(vii) Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 3271,
(viii) Writ Petition No.2273/2024, Sharayu D/o Ramesh Hedaoo Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Anr., dated 24/11/2025 and
(ix) Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors., 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180.
7. Per Contra, the Respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee submitted that the Petitioner has already obtained a Caste Certificate of 'Koshti' Special Backward Class (S.B.C.) from Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi on 07/07/2014 and she has also obtained Validity Certificate belonging to 'Koshti' S.B.C on 25/02/2015 bearing No. 959543 from the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee further submitted that the Petitioner has surrendered the Validity Certificate on 18/08/2017, however the Petitioner has been informed by the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee that KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 7/21 there is no provision of surrender of validity certificate as per the Act of 2000 and the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is final.
8. The Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee further submitted that it has procured following pre-constitutional period documents as well as Caste and Validity Certificates issued to the blood relatives of the Petitioner:
Sr. Document Name Relationship Caste Date No. Type with the Petitioner 1 Validity Suvarna Cousin Aunt Koshti 02.07.1996 Certificate Sudhakar Hedau 2 Caste Rajesh Real Koshti 06.08.2008 Certificate Darmachand Paternal Hedau Uncle 3 Caste Rajesh Real Halbi- 02.06.2010 Certificate Darmachand Paternal Koshti Hedau Uncle 4 Validity Rajesh Real Koshti 08.01.2013 Certificate Darmachand Paternal Hedau Uncle 5 Caste Aarti Rajesh Cousin Koshti 21.05.2008 Certificate Hedau Sister 6 Validity Aarti Rajesh Cousin Koshti 13.08.2012 Certificate Hedau Sister 7 Birth A male child Cousin Koshti 26.11.1928 Extract born to Ramu Grandfather Record Koshti 8 Birth A male child Cousin Koshti 12.01.1940 Extract born to Maroti Grandfather Record Gangaram 9 School Maroti Cousin Koshti 11.04.1946 KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 8/21 Extract Gangaram Grandfather Hedau 10 Birth A male child Great Sali 04.09.1934 Extract born to Tukaram Grandfather Record Ramji
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent relied on following citations:
(i) Writ Petition No. 11037/2024, Tulsa Vishwanath Waware Vs. The State of Maharashtra, dated 15/10/2024,
(ii) Writ Petition No.2563/2024, Dwarkabai d/o Purnaji Bhoi (maiden name) @ Dwarkabai w/o Ananda Mesare Vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, dated 03/05/2024,
(iii) Writ Petition No. 2394/2025, Murlidhar Namdeorao Khadge Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 05/05/2025 and
(iv) Writ Petition No. 16225/2023, Ritesh Ashok Chougale Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 22/09/2025.
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. KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 9/21
11. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as under :
12. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. Perused the documents placed on record and relied upon the citation relied on by the petitioner.
13. We have perused the document of birth extract, mentioning the date of birth as 14/08/1939 and a son born to Sitaram Ramuji Halbi, who is great grandfather of the petitioner. This document was duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. However, the Scrutiny Committee does not take into consideration the said document on the ground that the caste is not mentioned below the caste column. Admittedly, 'Halbi' is not the surname of the petitioner or her forefathers. Their surname is 'Hedau'. Only because Halbi did not mention below the caste column, the said document cannot be discarded. There is one KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 10/21 oldest document of 1898 at Sr.No.5, i.e. school transfer certificate pertaining to great grandfather Gangaram Ramji, wherein caste of Gangaram is mentioned as 'Halbi', father's name is mentioned as 'Ramji' and the date of admission is mentioned as 01/05/1893 to 01/08/1898. This document is the oldest one showing the caste of the forefather of petitioner as 'Halbi'. Though this document was verified by the Vigilance Cell, there is no remark in the remark column about the same. Even there is no discussion on this document in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. Another old document of 1934 at Sr.No.6, pertaining to Amrut Tukaram, cousin grandfather of the petitioner mentioning the caste as Halbi the date of admission is 28/11/1934. The said document was duly verified by the Vigilance Cell and it is mentioned that after perusal of school record of Achalpur Nagar Parishad Prathamik Shala Abbaspura, there is mention of cousin grandfather namely Amrut Tukaram showing admission on 28/11/1934 and caste is mentioned as 'Halbi'.
14. The Caste Scrutiny Committee considered the documents of the persons, which are not in relation with the petitioner from the paternal side. It is an admitted fact that some of the relatives of the petitioner obtained certificate of Halbi Koshti or Koshti included in Special Backward Classes. There is another document i.e. school KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 11/21 transfer certificate pertaining to Sadashiv Tukaram Hedau, wherein date of admission is shown as 02/04/1948 and the date of school leaving is 01/03/1956. There is no remark on this document, but it appears that the said document is duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. On perusal of the impugned order also, we find that there is no discussion in regard to this document dated 02/04/1948 by the Scrutiny Committee. In para-4 of the impugned order, the documents of 1939 at Sr.No.4, 1893 at Sr.No.5, 1934 at Sr.No.6, 1948 at Sr.No.9, 1946 at Sr.No.15 and 1943 at Sr.No.19 are accepted by the Scrutiny Committee, as in all these documents, the caste 'Halbi' is shown. However, these documents were not at all considered by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that during the period from 1928 to 2015, the petitioner was residing at Raipura, Abbaspura, Achalpur, District Amravati, which was not the scheduled area of Halba, Halbi. Another ground for rejection of the caste claim of the petitioner appears to be that some of the relatives obtained certificate of Koshti, Halbi Koshti included in Special Backward Classes. So far as the documents of 1934 in respect of Amrut Tukaram, 1939 of Sitaram Ramuji and 1932 of Gangaram Ramji are concerned, in all these documents, caste is mentioned as 'Halbi' and those documents have procured and duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. So far as the document at Sr.Nos.2 to 11 mentioned in para-8 of the impugned order are concerned, the same KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 12/21 are showing the relation through maternal side, therefore needs no consideration. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not at all considered the reply filed by the petitioner. It was specifically denied by the petitioner that there is any person by name Mahadeo, who is in relation with uncle's cousin father-in-law. It was pointed out that so far as the entry of Tukaram Ramji showing caste as 'Sali', it was specifically denied that he is in relation with the petitioner. The said Tukaram Ramji is resident of Jivanpura, whereas the petitioner and her forefathers are residing since last hundred years at Raipura, Achalpur. The person by name Tukaram Ramji Hedau, who is in relation with the petitioner (great grandfather) shown as 'Halbi' in 1932. The petitioner has also given date of birth of children of Tukaram Ramji, there is no son born to Tukaram Ramji on 04/09/1934. In view of this explanation, the Committee ought not to have considered these documents for rejection of the caste claim of the petitioner.
15. On perusal of the Vigilance Report and the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that there is no dispute about the documents produced by the petitioner on record. There are documents prior to 1950 showing the caste of the relatives from the paternal side of the petitioner as 'Halbi'. The Scrutiny Committee KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 13/21 referred the validity certificate and caste certificate issued in favour of relatives of the petitioner of caste Koshti and Halba Koshti included ni Special Backward Classes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though SBC certificate was obtained by the petitioner, no benefits were taken on this certificate and the same was surrendered on 18/08/2017.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certified Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (supra), wherein this Court by relying on the judgment in Priya Pravin Parate v. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others (supra) held in para 28 as under:
"28. Similarly, petitioner placed reliance on judgment in Priya Pravin Parate (supra), as the Committee has disbelieved the documents on the basis of entry 'Halbi Koshti', this Court in paragraph No. 10 held as under:
"10. Insofar as the reliance on some of the entries pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side showing caste to be 'Koshti' on which Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel relies, are concerned, perusal of the said document would reveal that though the caste of the said person is written as Koshti, the profession is also shown as weaving. As can be seen from the Gazetteer of Amravati District, that Halbi's in erstwhile Ellichpur and Anjangaon Surji in Daryapur Taluq in Amravati District were also engaged in the profession KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 14/21 of weaving. It is common knowledge that persons engaged in the profession of weaving were called as "Koshti". A possibility cannot be ruled out that due to this, said entries might have recorded. It is also relevant to refer to some portion from the authority of R.V. Russell on Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, published in 1916, wherein while dealing with the Halba Tribe, it has been stated that "Some of these soldiers may have migrated west and taken service under the Gond Kings of Chanda, and their descendants may now be represented by the Bhandara Zamindars, who, however, if this theory be correct, have entirely forgotten their origin. Others took up weaving and have become amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar.""
It is submitted that though SBC certificate was obtained on 07/07/2014, the same was surrendered on 18/08/2017. The petitioner drew our attention to the GR dated 13/06/1995, whereby Koshti, Halba Koshti, Halba Jat, etc. were included in Special Backward Classes.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in Sanjay s/o Rama Nandanwar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). In the said matter, the petitioner produced as many as 15 documents showing the caste of the petitioner and his blood relatives from paternal side as 'Halba/Halbi' consistently from 14/11/1943 to 06/07/1977. After vigilance enquiry also, there is no dispute that in the said matter, there was no entry of KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 15/21 Koshti or Halba Koshti. The Committee invalidated the caste claim on the basis of anthropological as well as historical research. The caste claim was also invalidated on the ground that Halba Koshti is included in the list of Special Backward Classes as well as on the ground that their place of resident was not at any time declared as scheduled area. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed that the petitioner and his forefathers were residing in Achalpur, District Amravati, which falls in Melghat area, which is original place of Halbis and was included in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order prior to removal of area restriction in the year 1976. This Court in Sanjay s/o Rama Nandanwar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) observed in para-6 as under:
"6. Initially Entry No.13 in the relevant Part in the Schedule to the Order reads as 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. By the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act No.63 of 1956, the said entry was substituted by Entry No.13 in para 7 of Part VIII(A) of the Scheduled to the Order, which was as follows:
"7. In (1) Melghat tahsil of the Amravati district.
(2) Gadchiroli and Sironcha tahsils of the Chanda district, (3) Kelapur, Wani and Yeotmal tahsils of the Yeotmal district :--
13. Halba or Halbi."
Act No.63 of 1956 introduced area restrictions and only those belonging to 'Halba' or 'Halbi' residing in the KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 16/21 areas at Serial Nos.(1), (2) and (3) in Clause 7 above were recognized as Scheduled Tribes. As a result, two things were required to be established to get the status of recognized Scheduled "ribe (a) that the person belongs to 'Halba' or 'Halbi', and (b) that his ordinary place of residence is, one or more areas at Serial Nos. (1), (2) and (3), as shown in Clause 7 above. The status of recognized Scheduled Tribe was not extended to the tribals in Entry No.13, not residing in the areas at Serial Nos. (1), (2) and (3) in Clause 7."
It is further held that -
"The area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the Stare of Maharashtra, contained in earlier Clause 7, for all the tribes including 'Halba', 'Halbi' was deleted. The members of the different tribes and communities in the State of Maharashtra included in Entry No.19 are treated and conferred with the s atus of recognized Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their place of residence in the State. The net result of such deletion was that the two-fold requirements of establishing ordinary place of residence of 'Halba' or 'Halbi' in tribal areas and their migration to non-tribal areas, was done away with and did not survive."
Thus, admittedly, there are many old documents prior to 1950 ranging from 1893 till 1948.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in Sharayu d/o Ramesh Hedaoo v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & anr. (supra), wherein this Court relying on the judgment in Writ Petition No.14111 KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 17/21 of 2021 (Mangesh Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai through its Secretary) and other connected matters, held that even if caste of any of the relative is invalidated, that does not bind other relatives and the claimant can establish his/her claim independently. What is held in Mangesh Panditrao Thakur (supra) in para-13 as under:
"13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti Narayan Vishve's certificate and the order has attained finality right up to the Supreme Court. However, we have been consistently holding that the decision of the scrutiny committee would only bind the claimant and would not bind the blood relatives, for the simple reason that they are not parties to such adjudication and that a blood relative may be able to substantiate his claim by leading cogent and relevant evidence sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon him under section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001."
It is specifically pointed out that the father of the petitioner stated in his statement that he performed marriage in other caste. This part of reply is not at all considered by the Scrutiny Committee and relied on that document pertaining to maternal side of the petitioner.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein it is held as under:
KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 18/21 "(b) for the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim ad is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case."
20. The learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance upon the judgments in Writ Petition No. 11037 of 2024 (Tulsa Vishwanath Waware v. The State of Maharashtra) and Petition No. 2394 of 2025 (Murlidhar Namdeorao Khadge v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), (supra), which primarily deal with the issue of suppression of facts. However, in the present case, there is no suppression of facts on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee relied upon the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2563 of 2024 (Dwarkabai d/o Purnaji Bhoi (Maiden Name) @ Dwarkabai w/o Ananda Mesare v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati) (supra) in support of his contention that the petitioner therein had cheated the Government Authorities knowingly claiming to have belonged to "Koli Mahadev"
Scheduled Tribe and thereafter asserting that she belonged to "Andh"
Scheduled Tribe by allegedly procuring false documents. However, in KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 19/21 the present matter, none of the documents relied upon by the petitioner are disputed, and the entries have been duly verified by the Vigilance Cell.
21. Further, in support of his contention, the learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee relied upon the judgment in Writ Petition No. 16225 of 2023 (Ritesh Ashok Chougale v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) (supra) and submitted that mere existence of different caste entries can never, by itself, lead to falsification of another set of entries unless it is demonstrated by the Petitioner that the other set of entries does not depict the correct position with regard to the social status claimed by the petitioner. However, in the judgment of Parnav Sadashiv Lad v. Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur, in Writ Petition No. 12713 of 2022, reference to which has been made in Writ Petition No. 16225 of 2023, (supra) it has been held in para-7 as under:
"7. ........ The existence of different entries can never by itself, lead to falsification of the other set of entries unless it is shown by the petitioner that the other set of entries does not depict the correct position with regard to the social status claimed by the petitioner" .........
22. In view of above discussion, there is no dispute in respect of the documents showing 'Halbi' entry of 1893, which is the oldest one. KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 20/21 It has greater probative value than the other entries. Thus, the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell showing adverse entry as 'Koshti' pertaining to the persons which are not in relation with the petitioner and those are considered by the Scrutiny Committee in violation of Rule 2(h) of the Rules of 2012. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee is not at all justified in rejecting the pre-constitutional documents pertaining to the years from 1893 till 1948. So also, the basis of affinity test which is also against the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). As such, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, in our considered opinion, is perverse and contrary to the law and provisions and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed.
23. The impugned order dated 21/08/2017, passed by the respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case No.lvk@vtizrl@ve@5&ST@2015@15303 is hereby quashed and set aside.
24. It is held and declared that the petitioner has established that she belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is KIRTAK / KHUNTE WP-6431.17-J.odt 21/21 hereby directed to issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner as she belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe within a period of two weeks.
25. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J) Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte KIRTAK / KHUNTE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/02/2026 11:50:22