Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Mahadeorao Raut vs The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:10314-DB
Judgment 1 902wp5344.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5344/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3656/2020
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4190/2021
WRIT PETITION NO. 5344/2022
Yogendra S/o Vijayrao Raut,
Aged about 22 years, Occ.
Student, R/o. Near Shanti
Apartment, Narayanpur Road,
Deomali Gram Panchayat,
Achalpur, Tah. Achalpur,
District Amravati
.....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati, Sane House, Old Bye
Pass Road, Chaparashipura,
Amravati 444602
.....RESPONDENT(S)
..𝓐..
Judgment 2 902wp5344.22.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3656/2020
Vijay S/o. Mahadeorao Raut,
Aged about 55 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. Near Shanti
Apartment, Narayanpur Road,
Deomali Gram Panchayat,
Achalpur, Tah. Achalpur,
District Amravati
.....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati, Sane House, Old Bye
Pass Road, Chaparashipura,
Amravati 444602
(2) Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
"Prakashganga", Plot No. C-19,
E-Block, Bandra-Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400051, Through its
Managing Director
..𝓐..
Judgment 3 902wp5344.22.odt
(3) Superintending Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
June Power House Parisar,
Dafrin Hospital Road, Amravati,
Tah. & District Amravati
(4) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Under Secretary,
General Administration
Department, Madam Cama
Road, Hutatma Rajguru Square,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
R-4 added as per Court's order
dated 06/06/2022
.....RESPONDENT(S)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4190/2021
Ku. Kamini D/o Vijay Raut,
Aged about 22 years, Occ.
Student, R/o. Narayanpur Road,
Deomali Gram Panchayat, Near
Shanti Apartments, Paratwada,
Taluka Achalpur, District
Amravati
.....PETITIONER(S)
..𝓐..
Judgment 4 902wp5344.22.odt
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Ministry
of Tribal Welfare and Social
Justice Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
(2) Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claims,
Amravati Region, Amravati,
Through its Deputy Director,
Amravati
(3) The Principal,
Government Engineering
College, Jalgaon, Taluka and
District Jalgaon, an autonomous
institution of Government of
Maharashtra
.....RESPONDENT(S)
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
S/Shri A. Deshpande & N.C. Phadnis, Advocates for the
Petitioners in respective Petitions
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Addl. GP for the Respondent/State
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- OCTOBER 03, 2025
..𝓐..
Judgment 5 902wp5344.22.odt
JUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) . RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) The Petitioner - Vijay Mahadeorao Raut in Writ Petition No. 3656/2020 is the father of the Petitioners - Yogendra & Kamini in Writ Petition No. 5344/2022 & 4190/2021 respectively. Since Writ Petition No. 5344/2022 is treated as lead Petition, the facts and contentions stated in the said Petition are set out for adjudication of the issue involved in all the Petitions and they are being decided by this common judgment.
(3) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition(s) are as under:-
(4) The Petitioner is a student and had taken admission from open category. The earlier admission taken by the Petitioner was in Scheduled Tribe category, but as the Petitioner was not having validity certificate, the admission was cancelled.
On 22/07/2019, the Petitioner submitted Application for verification of his tribe claim to the Respondent - Scrutiny ..𝓐..
Judgment 6 902wp5344.22.odt Committee along with the old documents prior to 1950. On 10/12/2010, the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee sent a copy of the show cause notice TO the Petitioner's father - Vijay Raut along with copy of the police vigilance report. The Petitioner's father replied to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 27/01/2016. The Vigilance Officer came up with some 'Koshti' documents which were stated in the show cause notice. The Petitioner's father gave explanation on the said documents and denied the documents of 'Koshti' as not belonging to the family. The Petitioner gave a reply stating that Harbaji i.e. the Petitioner's cousin great grand father died in June, 1929 and the entry which the Vigilance Officer came up with showing caste of Ramchandra Harbaji as Koshti is the birth entry of Ramchandra Harbaji dated 24/01/1931. It is submitted that when Harbaji died in the year 1929, how come Ramchandra could have born in 1931. Therefore, this document of 1931 is not from the Petitioner's family. On 07/08/2019, the tribe claim of the Petitioner was also sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Respondent - Scrutiny Committee sent show cause notice to the Petitioner along with copy of vigilance report. As the tribe claim of the father of the Petitioner was also ..𝓐..
Judgment 7 902wp5344.22.odt pending with the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee, he requested the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee to pass common order. Therefore, the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee heard the matter and passed a common order dated 18/06/2020 invalidating the tribe claims of the Petitioner as well as his father. The tribe claim of the sister of the Petitioner i.e. Ku. Kamini also came to be invalided by the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 24/08/2021. The said orders passed by the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee invaliding the tribe claim of the Petitioners are the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. (5) The family tree of the Petitioners is as under:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 8 902wp5344.22.odt
(6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the
Respondent - Scrutiny Committee ought to have seen that the Petitioners originally hail from Achalpur city which is a border area of Melghat and is earmarked for Halba/Halbi tribes in the map of the tribal area prepared by the State Government. In spite of submission of old documents showing the tribe as 'Halba/Halbi', the tribe claim of the Petitioners came to be invalidated. The caste certificates were issued to the Petitioners on the basis of old documents and certificates, which were having high probative and presumptive value. The Respondent -
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claims of the Petitioners on the ground that they have failed to establish the affinity test. It is submitted that when the documents produced by the Petitioners established that they belong to 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, then it is not permissible for the Respondent -
Scrutiny Committee to go into the affinity test and to reject the tribe claims of the Petitioners. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the Respondent- Scrutiny Committee are liable to be quashed and set aside.
..𝓐..
Judgment 9 902wp5344.22.odt
(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of
their contentions, relied on the following citations:-
"(a) Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & others, 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919;
(b) Priya S/o Pravin Parate vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & others, 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180;
(c) Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326;
(d) Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs. State of Maharashtra & others in SLP (C) No. 27410/2024; &
(e) Vijay Pundlikrao Raikwar vs. State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 4880/2023"
(8) On the contrary, learned Addl. GP submitted that the tribe claim of the Petitioner - Vijay Raut's blood relative Ganpat Rambhau Raut (paternal cousin brother) was also invalidated by the Respondent- Scrutiny Committee and the same has never been challenged before any Court. It is submitted that on perusal of the entries submitted before the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee, it is clear that the Petitioners belong to Halbi-Koshti tribe which comes under the Special Backward Class and they ..𝓐..
Judgment 10 902wp5344.22.odt do not belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe as claimed by the Petitioners. The Respondent - Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected the tribe claims of the Petitioners. Hence, the Petition being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed. (9) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the documents placed on record and also the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned AGP and considered the citations relied on by the Petitioners. (10) The contention of the Petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee has not given any weightage to the oldest documents for no reason. The Petitioner has produced the following old documents along with his proposal. Those documents are as under:-
Sr. Particulars of documents Dates Castes No.
1. Birth and Death Register June, 1929 Halbi Certificate of Petitioner's cousin grandfather (Harbaji Timaji)
2. School Transfer Certificate 15/08/1931 Halbi of the Petitioner's grandfather (Mahadeo Nagoji) ..𝓐..
Judgment 11 902wp5344.22.odt
3. Birth Register of daughter 09/11/1949 Halbi
born to Petitioner's cousin
grandfather (Sampat Nagoji
Raut)
4. Birth Register of son born 28/12/1952 Halbi
to Petitioner's cousin
grandfather (Sampat Nagoji
Raut)
5. School Transfer Certificate 26/06/1954 Halbi
of the Petitioner's
grandmother (Lila
Sampatrao Raut)
6. School Transfer Certificate 01/08/1917 Halbi
of the Petitioner's
grandfather (Ganpat
Nagoji)
7. School Transfer Certificate 20/06/1934 Halbi
and Dakhal Kharij Register
of the Petitioner's great
great grandfather (Narayan
Ramchandra Raut)
8. Extract of Death and Birth 15/12/1936 Halbi
Register of the Petitioner's
great great grandfather
(Nagoji Nimaji)
9. School Transfer Certificate 15/04/1940 Halbi
of the Petitioner's
grandfather (Krushna
Babya Raut)
(11) Apart from the above documents, the Petitioner has
placed on record the documents of 1957, 1959, 1962, 1965, 1969, 1971 and 2004. The Scrutiny Committee erroneously discarded these old documents without there being any material, ..𝓐..
Judgment 12 902wp5344.22.odt invalidated the tribe claims of the Petitioners. It appears that the Petitioner's father originally hails from Achalpur city which is a border area of Melghat and is earmarked for Halba/Halbi tribes in the map of the tribal area prepared by the State Government.
Prior to removal of the area restriction, the city of Achalpur was included in the tribal area. This aspect has not at all been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee also rejected the claims of the Petitioners on the ground that they have failed to establish the affinity test. When there are old documents prior to 1950 showing the tribe of the forefathers of the Petitioners as 'Halbi', the affinity test is only a corroborative piece of evidence. It is not a litmus test, as held in the case of Anand (supra). In absence of any authentic data, the conclusion of the Scrutiny Committee that the Petitioners have failed to establish the affinity test is perverse.
(12) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Anand (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraph No. 18, held as under:-
"18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to ..𝓐..
Judgment 13 902wp5344.22.odt 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;
..𝓐..
Judgment 14 902wp5344.22.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, 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."
..𝓐..
Judgment 15 902wp5344.22.odt
(13) The judgment in the case of Anand (supra) is
followed in many judgments of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Insofar as the documents prior to 1950 are concerned, the Scrutiny Committee cannot brush aside those documents on the basis of some entry of 'Koshti'. The document of 1917 is the oldest document having high probative value and it ought to have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate the authenticity of the documents and rejected the claims of the Petitioners. (14) It is not the case that the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that there is a fraud or misrepresentation by the Petitioners. In absence of that, the documents cannot be discarded. The reason for discarding the document of 1917 is that when the Officers of the Vigilance Cell visited the concerned Office, the relevant record was not available, and therefore, this document of Ganpat Nagoji cannot be considered as an evidence. This reasoning is nothing but a deliberate attempt to disallow the claims of the Petitioners. There are other entries of 1934, 1936 and 1940 showing the tribe as 'Halbi'. Insofar as the document of 1934 showing the tribe as 'Halbi' in ..𝓐..
Judgment 16 902wp5344.22.odt respect of the Narayan Ramchandra Raut is concerned, this document is not considered by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the said name is not appearing in the family tree. The names of Narayan and Ramchandra Harbaji are there in the family tree. Therefore, this observation is contrary to the record and incorrect. The document dated 15/12/1936 came to be rejected on the ground that in the family tree of the Petitioner, there is no Nimaji but Timaji. However, the Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate this fact that Nagoji's name is there and he is also having a daughter namely Shanti. Nago Nimaji Halbi was a resident of Sarmaspura.
(15) There is one more document of June, 1929 showing that Harbaji Timaji Halbi Sarmaspura gave birth to a son. The Vigilance Cell procured one document of 1929 showing the tribe as 'Koshti'. In reply of the Petitioners to the Vigilance Enquiry, it is very much made clear by the Petitioner that the said entry is not of a person who is in relation to him. It is also pointed out that the said document is of Sultanpura whereas the documents pertaining to blood relatives of the Petitioner are from Sarmaspura and the family originally hails from Sarmaspura. ..𝓐..
Judgment 17 902wp5344.22.odt Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee that Harbaji who is the cousin grandfather of the Petitioner died in 1929. The death certificate is already submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. When Harbaji died in 1929, how can he give birth to a child in the year 1931. (Page
80). Therefore, this documents should not have been relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee.
(16) Another document procured by the Vigilance Cell of 1944 is pertaining to Mahadeo Nagoji. While relying on this document, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the reply filed by the Petitioner wherein he has made it clear that in the entry of Mahadeo Nagoji, the name of the child is shown as Maroti. It was pointed out that none of the child of Mahadeo is by name Maroti. It is submitted that this document cannot be considered. Another document on which the reliance is placed is of 1946. However, it was pointed out that none of the five children of Mahadeo were born in the year 1946. (17) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Priya Parate (supra) wherein this Court, in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, held as under:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 18 902wp5344.22.odt "10. In so far as the reliance on some of the entries pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side showing caste to be ''Koshti'' on which Mrs. 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 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 Casts 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. From the aforesaid authority, it would reveal that persons belonging to Halba Tribe had migrated ..𝓐..
Judgment 19 902wp5344.22.odt to west and taken service taken service under the Gond Kings of Chanda. It can also be seen that some of them had taken to weaving and had amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar. Merely because some stray entries as ""Koshti"" are recorded in respect of caste of some of the relative of petitioners from their paternal side; the voluminous documentary evidence of pre-Constitution era which clearly certify the petitioners great-grand father and his brothers to be Halbi, could not have been lightly brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee. As discussed herein above, the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Anand (supra), found that the pre-
Independence documents have a greater probative value and they should be given due consideration while considering the claim of a tribal.
11. As already discussed herein above, merely because it was found that the petitioners forefathers were involved in the profession of weaving, could not have been a ground to reject their tribal claim, particularly in view of the observations contained in the Amravati District Gazetteer, so also in the authority of R.V. Russell, cited above."
(18) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi ..𝓐..
Judgment 20 902wp5344.22.odt Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), in support of their contention that when there are old documents available on record, the Scrutiny Committee ought not to have directed the Vigilance Enquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraph Nos. 19 and 20, held as under:-
"19. Subrule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. Therefore, in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry. When subrule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the material produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the application of mind must ..𝓐..
Judgment 21 902wp5344.22.odt be reflected in the order sheets of the Scrutiny Committee.
20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1. It lays down that the documents of the pre Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order. In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all."
(19) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of their contention that greater reliance needs to be placed on pre- independence documents, because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Madhav Makhalwar (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Paragraph No. 8 as under:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 22 902wp5344.22.odt "8. It can, thus, be seen that this Court held that 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.
Insofar as the applicability of the affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been observed that 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. It is, therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that merely because the applicant does not match the tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe."
..𝓐..
Judgment 23 902wp5344.22.odt
(20) Insofar as the affinity test is concerned, learned
Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Anand (supra). The Scrutiny Committee produced the documents having similar name in the family tree of the Petitioners. However, it has failed to appreciate this fact that the entries are of Sultanpura. Moreover, the said person Harbaji died in the year 1929. Therefore, there is no question of giving birth to any child as mentioned in the document procured by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has discarded the old document of 1917 for no reason and perverse finding is recorded that the record is not available. Whereas, the Petitioners have placed on record the School Transfer Certificate under the signature of Headmaster. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Scrutiny Committee failed to exercise its jurisdiction and recorded perverse and erroneous finding which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Scrutiny Committee has grossly erred in rejecting the tribe claims of the Petitioners.
(21) Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-
..𝓐..
Judgment 24 902wp5344.22.odt
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(b) The common order dated 18/06/2020 in Case
No. lvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/503/Edu/072018/149049 and
lvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/2008/10136 and the order dated
24/08/2021 in Case No. lvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/2015/10468
passed by the Respondent - Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati are hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is held that the Petitioners have established that they belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificates to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks.
(d) The Petitioners can rely on copy of this judgment till the validity certificates are issued to them.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) ..𝓐..