Bombay High Court
Mr. Vijay S/O Wasudeo Gadikar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 3 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:11398-DB
WP-1710.18-J.odt
1/18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1710 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Mr. Vijay s/o Wasudeo Gadikar, Age-50
years, Occu.: Service, Presently residing
at : Near Kolbaswami Library, Golibar
Chauk, Timki Road, Nagpur - 440018,
Mob. No.9921285396.
-Versus-
NON-APPLICANTS : 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
through its Member Secretary, Office
at : Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Amravati
Road, Giripeth, Nagpur-440001.
Phone No.07122560031, Email ID
[email protected]
2. The State of Maharashtra, Tribal
Development Department, through its
Secretary, Mantralaya Mumbai - 400032,
Telephone No.: 022-22025042/
022-22028762, Email ID:
[email protected]
3. Zilha Parishad, Nagpur, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001.
Amendment carried out 4. Adivasi Halba/Halbi Sanstha Through its
as per Court Order
District President Shalikram Pandurang
dated 23/01/2023
Sd/- Mankar, Aged about 65 years, Occu:
Adv.Shankar Borkute Retired, R/o. At Chirchodi, Post Purada,
Counsel for Petitioner
Taluka Kurkheda, District Gadchiroli.
KHUNTE
WP-1710.18-J.odt
2/18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.S.Mardikar, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.S.D.Borkute, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms.Kavita Bhondge, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Adv.for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Though respondent No.4 is represented through counsel, none appears.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought declaration that respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee lacks power to hold the affinity test and embark upon the anthropological inquiries in the matter of Article 342 of the Constitution of India and lacks power to adjudicate the matter of caste verification under the Supreme Court Judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28/02/2018 passed by respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee, thereby KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 3/18 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as also directions to respondent No.3 not to terminate the service of the petitioner as Junior Assistant of the Zilha Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Brief facts of the present case are that on 02/08/1988, the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur issued a caste certificate in favour of petitioner belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant against a reserved post of Scheduled Tribe on the establishment of respondent No.3. On 24/01/2012, the petitioner applied for verification of his caste claim to the respondent No.1 through respondent No.3-employer.
5. The petitioner contended that the anthropological survey and inquiries are exclusively fall within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the State Legislature has no competence over it, because the census is also a subject exclusively reserved for the Parliament and the State has no authority to deal with the same. The petitioner has placed several documents on record, including pre-constitutional era, which are as under:
Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date
No. Tribe
1. Birth Extract of great grandfather of Halba 21/08/1921
petitioner (Sivram Halba) dated
21/08/1921.
KHUNTE
WP-1710.18-J.odt
4/18
2. Extract of School Admission Register Halbi 08/01/1929
pertaining to his grandfather Vithoba
Vasanta Ramchand Halbi
3. School Leaving Certificate of Vithoba Halbi 08/01/1929
Vasanta Ramchand
4. Extract of School Admission Register Halba 30/06/1943
of Hari Vithoba Vasanta Gadikar, real
cousin uncle of petitioner
5. Extract of School Admission Register Halba 30/06/1943
of Pandurang Beniram Shioram
Gadikar, real uncle of the petitioner.
6. School Leaving Certificate of Halbi 14/04/1944
Pandurang Beniram Shioram Gadikar,
real uncle of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner submitted that due to misleading entry of 'Koshti' occurring in one of the documents of his forefathers pertaining to the year 1946, the Scrutiny Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 07/08/2013. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner provided all the details of his social- cultural practices associated with the tribe or tribal communities of 'Halba'. The Scrutiny Committee referred the case of the petitioner for fresh vigilance enquiry on 15/01/2015 and the Vigilance Squad submitted its fresh report on 06/07/2017, wherein it has submitted contrary report to the claim of the petitioner by undertaking the anthropological enquiries in the matter of Article 342. The petitioner further submitted that the Vigilance Squad twisted the case of the petitioner by procuring totally unrelated documents and obtained the KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 5/18 statements of strangers. Against which, the petitioner sought permission to cross-examine those strangers and detailed enquiry. However, the said request was rejected. The petitioner further filed his written submissions on 05/01/2018 and 30/01/2018. In spite of above submissions, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 28/02/2018, on the grounds that the petitioner failed to prove his caste claim through documentary evidence, as some documents pertain to 'Koshti' and the entries 'Halba' or Halbi' occurring in the documents pertain to his forefathers and other grounds like failed to prove affinity test, native place of ancestors within the restricted area of scheduled tribe prescribed for Halba or Halbi. These grounds compelled the petitioner to file the present petition for the reliefs claimed in the prayer clause.
6. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following citations:
(i) Order dated 02/03/2007 in Writ Petition No.3093/2006 (Durgesh s/o Haribhau Gadikar v. State of Maharashtra and others)
(ii) Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326,
(iii) Judgment dated 07/08/2025 in Writ Petition No.7256/2024 (Sauravkumar Sunilkumar Katole v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee) and KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 6/18 one connected matter.
(iv) Gauri d/o Mohan Nadge v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and another, 2025 (2) Mh.L.J. 536.
7. Per contra, the learned AGP submitted that it is undisputed fact on record that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim belonging to Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe, as the documents having highest probative value do not reflect the tribe of the petitioner as Halba/Halbi. It is further submitted that oldest school record reflects the caste of petitioner's blood relatives as 'Koshti', which comes under Special Backward Category, and the said record pertains to the year 1926, 1935, 19346, 1943 and 1946, though some entries reflected the caste as Halba/Halbi. It is pertinent to submit that the petitioner has not sought any relief for protection of his service. In view of this fact, the petitioner is not entitled for protection of his service.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and proceedings and considered the citations relied on by the parties.
9. For the sake of convenience, the family tree is reproduced as under:
KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 7/18
10. The oldest entry is birth extract of 1921 in respect of Sivram shows 'Halba', wherein it is mentioned that Sivram Halba gave birth to one son. Another entry in the extract of admit cancel register dated 01/08/1920 in respect of admission of Vithoba Vasanta is showing as 'Halbi'. The entry of admit cancel register in respect of Hari Vithoba, father's name mentioned as Vithoba Vasanta Gadikar, caste is shown as 'Halba' and in this document, the date of birth is shown as 30/01/1937 and the date of admission is shown as 30/06/1943. Along with extract of admit cancel register the petitioner placed on record school leaving certificate of Vasant, Hari and Vijay. The petitioner also placed on record extract of admit cancel register of Pandurang Beniram Gadikar wherein the date of birth is shown as 10/08/1936, the date of admission is shown as 30/06/1943 KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 8/18 and in the caste column 'Halbi' is shown. The school leaving certificate of Pandurang Beniram Gadikar is also placed on record. Another document in respect of Kisan Vithoba Gadikar is placed on record, which shows his caste as 'Halbi', the date of birth is shown as 01/07/1945 and the date of admission is shown as 06/02/1952. The school leaving certificate of Kisan Vithoba Gadikar, issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur is also placed on record showing caste as 'Halbi'. Another document, which was placed on record by the petitioner is in respect of Laxminarayan Benisav Gadikar, wherein the caste is shown as 'Halba' in the caste column and occupation is shown as 'Vinkari', the date of birth is shown as 09/10/1950. The school leaving certificate in respect of Vasudeo Benisav Gadikar, wherein the entry is shown as 'Halba', the date of birth is shown as 15/03/1940 and the date of admission is shown as 12/05/1951. The school leaving certificate in respect of Vijay Vasudeo Gadikar is also placed on record and the entry of caste is shown as 'Halba'. In the extract of admit cancel register of Vijay Vasudeo Gadikar the caste is mentioned as 'Halba', occupation is shown as 'Vinkar', date of birth is 01/01/1968 and the date of admission is shown as 28/07/1973. The school leaving certificate issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur in respect of Pandurang Gadikar, father's name Beniram Shivram Gadikar, the entry is shown as 'Halbi', he was studying in the KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 9/18 school since 30/06/1943 till 14/04/1944. The petitioner also placed on record school leaving certificate of Laxminarayan Benisav Gadikar showing his caste as 'Halba'. In all the documents, the petitioner's forefathers are shown belonging to either 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. Except one document, which is school leaving certificate issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur in respect of Vasudeo Benisav Gadikar showing his caste as 'Koshti' of the year 1999. In the school leaving certificate issued on 26/12/1995, the caste of Vasudeo is shown as 'Halba'. Therefore, it is apparently a clerical mistake on the part of the school. The said certificate of 1995 wherein the date of birth is shown as 15/03/1940, the date of admission is 12/05/1951 and the date of school leaving is shown as 31/03/1961 and the same particulars are also mentioned in the certificate issued on 26/12/1995.
11. There was show cause notice issued on 07/08/2013 after the vigilance report dated 12/07/2013. If the report is perused, it appears that the documents produced by the petitioner either not verified or verified and there is no objection to it, except one of the documents in respect of Vasudeo Benisav Gadikar, wherein caste is shown as 'Koshti'. It is in respect of Vasudeo Benisav Gadikar, wherein it was mentioned that he left the school after passing 4 th standard in KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 10/18 1951. Except that entry, in all old documents placed on record showing entry either as 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice, wherein it was specifically averred that there was no reason to disbelieve the documents consisting of 1921- 1922 to 1950-1951. In the show cause notice, it is not made clear that what is the culture, customs, social status and practices of persons belonging to 'Halba'. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not followed the culture, customs, social status and practices adopted by Halba Community. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer of Vigilance Cell have not competent to conduct such enquiry. The detailed reply on affidavit dated 26/11/2014 is also submitted by the petitioner and relied on the book written by Shri R. V. Russel namely 'Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India' Vol. III. It is pointed out that a single entry showing 'Koshti' which is by mistake entered by the then headmaster because the parents of the said child are not educated or well versed with these niceties. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919. The detailed family tree is also placed before the Scrutiny Committee.
12. There was another vigilance enquiry directed by the KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 11/18 Scrutiny Committee and the report was submitted on 23/06/2017. So far as the entry in respect of Vithoba Vasant is concerned, the same is verified by the Vigilance Cell and date of birth is shown as 01/08/1920 and the date of admission is shown as 08/01/1929. There is entry of 'Halbi' in the school record. The documents procured by the Vigilance Cell mainly show the entry either 'Halbi' or 'Halba'. The documents at Sr.Nos.5 and 6 do not appear from the family of petitioner, as there is no person by name Trambak in the family of the petitioner. Similarly, there is no daughter born to Benisav s/o Shriram in the family of petitioner. Simillary, document at Sr. No.7 is also not in relation with the petitioner, since there is no person by name Mahadeo s/o Benisav in the family of petitioner. The enquiry officer of Vigilance Cell submitted negative report and only considered the document of the year 1999, wherein there is entry of 'Koshti'. However, it is consequently overlooked as there are many documents of pre-independence era showing the entry of 'Halbi' or 'Halba' in respect of forefathers of the petitioner. The entry of Hari Vithoba in the school register, wherein it is clear that Hari Vithoba admitted on 30/06/1943 in the school and the entry is shown as Halba. Similarly, the school record in respect of Vithoba s/o Vasant Ramchand Gadikar dated 08/09/1929 the entry is shown as 'Halbi'. The birth extract in respect of Shivram dated 21/08/1921, who is shown to resident of KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 12/18 Chichgad, District Gondia. These entries of 'Halba' and 'Halbi' cannot be brushed aside, specifically when they are prior to 1950. Further, though the Vigilance Cell submitted that there is overwriting in respect of school record of Vithoba, on perusal of pages 283 and 284 of the record, we do not see any overwriting or any scoring on the said documents. Thus, the Vigilance Cell has disbelieved those documents on very flimsy reasons. It appears that all the attempts have been made by the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner.
13. The Scrutiny Committee though observed in its order dated 28/02/2018 on page 138 of the petition in clause (b) that there are entries of 'Halba' and 'Halbi' of 1929 to 1958, still rejected the claim of the petitioner. In reply, the petitioner made clear that his forefathers shifted to Nagpur and adopted the profession of weaving. The Koshti entry is in relation to the occupation and not the caste. There were many persons, who were adopted 'weaving' as their profession. In that 'Halba' is also one of the castes. The petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra) (Civil Appeal No.6340/2004) wherein para-18 is reproduced as under:
KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 13/18 "18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted 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;
(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 KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 14/18 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."
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-38 as under:
"38. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise.
(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 KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 15/18 the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case."
15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in Sauravkumar Sunilkumar Katole v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (supra) in which this Court in para-22 relied on the decision in Mangesh s/o Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.14111/2021 and other connected matters) at Aurangabad Bench, wherein this Court held 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."
16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in Gauri d/o Mohan Nadge v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (supra), wherein the finding KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 16/18 recorded in Adiwasi Tahkur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 785 is reiterated as under:
"16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Adiwasi Thakur Jamat (supra) has held that "an affinity test cannot be termed a litmus test, particularly when the pre- constitutional documents exist and are placed on record." Likewise, "the oldest pre-Constitutional documents have more probative value than the subsequent documents"; therefore, the Committee's findings regarding the affinity test cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law."
17. So far as contention of the Scrutiny Committee that in the matter of Durgesh Haribhau Gadikar v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) the caste claim of Durgesh Haribhau Gadikar was rejected. However, the learned senior counsel pointed out that the said claim was rejected only on the ground of affinity test. It is observed in the said judgment that grandfather's and uncle's record though available and was as "Halbi", as per the report of Vigilance Cell, the petitioner did not withstand affinity test. However, in view of the judgment of this Court as held in Mangesh s/o Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) 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 KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 17/18 substantiate his claim by leading cogent and relevant evidence sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon him. As such, the ground for rejection that one of the blood relatives' caste claim was rejected, which was confirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, does not survive in the eyes of law. Therefore, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner would require to quash and set aside. Hence, the petition is allowed.
18. The impugned order dated 28/02/2018, passed by respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in Case No.lvk/vtizrlukx/III/24/31/11-12 is hereby quashed and set aside.
19. It is declared that the petitioner has duly established that he belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. As such, respondent No.1- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to issue Validity Certificate in favour of petitioner that he belongs to 'Halba Scheduled Tribe' within a period of three weeks.
20. Since the petitioner is succeeded in the petition and since there is order dated 21/03/2018 of maintaining status quo, in relation to the employment of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is directed to grant all service benefits with continuity of service to the petitioner.
KHUNTE WP-1710.18-J.odt 18/18
21. The petitioner can rely on this judgment for his official purpose, if at all necessary before issuance of caste validity certificate by respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (SMT.M. S. JAWALKAR, J) Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte KHUNTE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/11/2025 16:07:36