Bombay High Court
Neha Sanjay Nipane (Ku. Beby Vithoba ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 5 March, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:3830-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3679 OF 2022
Smt. Neha Sanjay Nipane
(Ku. Beby Vithoba Bhanarkar),
Age: 49 year, Occupation: Service
R/o Flat No. 404, Kashi Apartment,
Nandanwan Main Road,
Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440010.
2) Government of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3) The Director,
Tribal Research and Training
Institute, Pune.
4) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of law and Justice,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
5) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Social Justice,
Mantralay, Mumbai.
Judgment 2 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
6) The Deputy Director General
Government of India
Ministry of Statistic and Program
implementation, National Statistical office,
Maharashtra Region (West Region),
A-2/3 wing, CGO Complex, Fourth floor,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614.
7) The Deputy Director General
Government of India
Ministry of Statistic and Program
implementation, National Sample
Survey Organization (Field Operations
Division) Zonal Office Western Zone,
CGO Complex, A-Block, Third Floor,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440006.
8) Union of India
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances
and Pensions Department of Personal
and Training (DOPT) New Delhi. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. C. J. Dhumane, Advocate for the Respondent
Nos. 6 to 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27/01/2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 05/03/2026
Judgment 3 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
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 is challenging the order dated 02/02/2018, passed by Respondent No. 1- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioner belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe and the impugned order dated 23/06/2022 (shown as 23/06/2019) removing the Petitioner from service issued by Respondent No.6- The Deputy Director General Government of India, Ministry of Statistic and Programme implementation.
3. The Petitioner submitted that she is a Government servant presently working as an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Office (Field Operations Division), Western Zone, Nagpur. Her school records have consistently recorded her caste as 'Halba', and her family members were also shown as Judgment 4 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt belonging to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe community in the Census Report of 2011, published by the Registrar General of India.
4. The Petitioner further contended that she was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 16/10/1995 on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Committee and joined service on 27/10/1995, after submitting her caste certificate. She was confirmed in service on 05/03/1998 and promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 03/04/2018, clearly establishing that her appointment and service progression were regular and lawful.
5. The Petitioner submitted that in the year 2009, while she was posted at Nagpur and living alone due to her husband's transfer, she was subjected to sexual harassment by a senior officer. An enquiry was conducted, and the concerned officer was cautioned by office memorandum dated 18/08/2010.
6. The Petitioner further contended that thereafter, on the basis of an alleged complaint dated 25/02/2010 filed by one Niraj B. Durugkar, Timki, Nagpur, who was never disclosed to Judgment 5 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt her nor produced during any enquiry, subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated and her caste certificate was sent for verification. The District Magistrate, Nagpur, by letter dated 18/05/2012, confirmed the correctness and genuineness of her caste certificate, and the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 18/05/2015, exonerated her by holding that the charges were not proved.
7. The Petitioner further contended that despite this clear verification, the department insisted upon submitting her documents to the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the law, which came into force on 18/10/2001, even though her caste certificate had been issued much earlier on 09/08/1988. Nevertheless, she cooperated fully and submitted the documents on 19/05/2015, which were forwarded on 26/05/2015.
8. The Petitioner further submits that she received a memorandum dated 09/11/2017 enclosing the Vigilance Cell Report dated 05/10/2017, to which she submitted her detailed reply on 04/12/2017. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 02/02/2018, invalidated her caste claim and Judgment 6 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt cancelled her Caste Certificate dated 09/08/1988, despite earlier verification by the Competent Authority, thereby compelling her to approach this Court.
9. Furthermore, the Petitioner submits that the school records mentioning "H. Koshti" are unreliable, as the Vigilance Cell documents obtained under the RTI Act show no caste declaration by her guardians and appear to be based only on occupational assumptions. She further states that earlier departmental proceedings on the same issue ended in her favour on 12/10/2012 and, although fresh charges were framed on 25/02/2019. The matter was finally settled by order dated 27/06/2019 in line with DoPT guidelines dated 08/04/2019 by imposing only a penalty of reduction in seniority. Despite this, reopening the matter and removing her from service is illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of natural justice. She also submits that similarly placed employees under the Government of Maharashtra have been protected till retirement, and denial of the same treatment to her violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment 7 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
10. The learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner relied upon the following Citations:
(i) Priya Pravin Parate vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors., 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180 and
(ii) Writ Petition No. 6133/2018, Ku. Kunda Ramkrushna Shete Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 13/01/2026.
11. Per Contra the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.-1 submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/02/2018 belatedly. Without prejudice thereto, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law after granting the Petitioner adequate opportunity of hearing.
12. The Respondent further submitted that pursuant to complaint dated 25/02/2010, the Petitioner's caste claim was referred for verification and, after vigilance enquiry, show cause notice dated 13/07/2017 was issued and duly served on 09/11/2017. The Petitioner submitted her reply on 04/12/2017 and was granted personal hearing. Upon examining the material Judgment 8 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt on record, including pre-constitutional documents showing caste entries as 'Koshti' and 'Halba Koshti', which is included in Other Backward Class (OBC) and not a Scheduled Tribe, the Committee invalidated the Petitioner's claim by order dated 02/02/2018, holding that she failed to establish her caste claim.
13. The pre-constitutional adverse entry found by the vigilance cell is enlisted below-
Sr. Document Type Name on the Relation Tribe Date
document with the
No
petitioner
1. Dakhal Kharij Ganpati Balaji Uncle Koshti 02.08.1936
14. The Respondent Nos.6 and 7 contended that after a complaint was received, a proper and detailed enquiry was conducted by the Scrutiny Committee into the Petitioner's caste claim. Upon examining old and reliable family records, the Committee found that the Petitioner does not belong to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe and that the caste certificate had been obtained by suppressing material facts, leading to its cancellation.
Judgment 9 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
15. The Respondent No. 6 and 7 further contended that the Scrutiny Committee acted strictly in accordance with its statutory powers under the law, and once the caste certificate was cancelled after due enquiry, all documents based on it lose their validity. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
16. 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.
17. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as under :
Judgment 10 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
18. Admittedly, there is no document prior to 1950 showing caste of forefather of the Petitioner as "Halba". All documents are subsequent to 1950, produced by the Petitioner as well as procured by the vigilance. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee heavily relied on the entry in Admit Cancel Register, pertaining to Ganpati Balaji as "Koshti". However, daughter of the Ganpati i.e. Devki Ganpati is shown as "Halba Koshti". The entry of Ganpati is of the year 1936 and entry of Devki Ganpati is of 1961.
19. Admittedly, there is no other adverse entry except the said entry of 1936 in respect of Ganpati Balaji. The Petitioner has duly explained the reason that they are Halbas', but they adopted profession of weaving. It has also explained by the Petitioner that her forefathers were illiterate and uneducated, therefore, the possibility of the relatives or the school teacher admitted the Ganpati Balaji in the school cannot be ruled out. The petitioner also placed reliance on various references in respect of 'Halba'.
Judgment 11 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
20. On perusal of the Admit Cancel Register of Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Primary School, Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, clearly shows that their occupation is Winkari (weaving), in view of this, there may be the Koshti entry in the school record. The Petitioner placed reliance on Anthropological Department of India publication People of India: Maharashtra 2004, wherein it is refers as under :
Page No.1130:- "Koshti is the Marathi term for weavers who make sarees from silk and fine cotton cloth".
Page No.1145:- "Under the head "Koshti" there are different communities who have adopted weaving as an occupation some of these communities are Devangan, Sut Sali, Swakool Sali, Lad, Padmashali and Halbi/Halba. The traditional occupation of the above communities was weaving and hence they are known as Devangan Koshti, Lad Koshti, Sut Sali Koshti and so forth".
Page No.1130:- "The community has several sub division, the Halbi appear to be an off shoot of the primitive Halba tribe, who have taken to weaving".
21. The Petitioner also placed reliance on "Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India" Vol-III, wherein it is held as under :
"Subsequently the Halbas served as soldiers in the armies of the Ratanpur kings and their position no doubt considerably improved, so that in Bastar they Judgment 12 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt became an important landholding case. 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".
22. In the present matter, consistently since 1966 entry of 'Halba' as a caste appearing in the documents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on Priya Pravin Parate (supra), wherein this Court considered this aspects and also placed reliance on the authority of R.V. Russell on Tribes and Casts of the Central Provinces of India, published in 1916 and held as under :
"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 Judgment 13 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt 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."
23. In view of the fact that single entry of 1936 wherein Koshti shown as caste and weaving is shown as profession, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have accepted the explanation given by the Petitioner. There is no other documents prior to 1950 procured by the vigilance showing caste of any other relative as Koshti, if that would have been the case, the Scrutiny Committee might have been justified in invalidating the caste claim. It is not the case of the Scrutiny Committee that the documents produced on record are fraudulent or fabricated nor vigilance cell doubted the same.
24. Admittedly, there is a Caste Certificate issued in favour of Petitioner showing her caste as "Halba" in the year 1988. It is contended that the said certificate is issued by the Judgment 14 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt Competent Authority/Public Servant and Valid to be operated in entire geographic area of India. It is not the contention of the Scrutiny Committee that said certificate is false document. Moreover, from Annexure-8, it appears that issuance of said certificate is duly verified from the Competent authority. The School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner also shows her caste as "Halba". From the document of 1936, it can be seen that Ganpati Balaji is the first person who was admitted in the school and his profession is mentioned as 'Winkari'(weaving). As such, Koshti is by mistakenly written as caste. The said entry is of 1944, however, in view of the School Code, the entry in the school record can be changed. There is no other document produced by the Petitioner and collected by the vigilance showing that any other relative was admitted in the school and his caste is shown as Koshti except the Ganpati Balaji. From this fact itself it is evident that their family is illiterate and uneducated and for the first time, the said person Ganpati Balaji was admitted in the school, therefore, due to illiteracy, the mistake occurred while entering the caste was not identified by the ancestors of the Petitioner. However, being illiterate and Judgment 15 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt uneducated relatives, no steps were taken to correct the same, which precaution appears to be taken at the time of admission of daughter of Ganpati in 1967.
25. The Petitioner has also duly explained how her claim cannot be rejected on the ground of affinity. The information collected by the vigilance were not experts and only remark that affinity does not match to the cultural traits of 'Halba' is arbitrary. There is no reasoning for such conclusion. It is also a matter of record that till 1997, Koshti was not considered as any caste. It would be beneficial to refer the Judgment in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919, that affinity test is not a litmus test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18 held as under :
"18. ...........
(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 Judgment 16 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt 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, 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."
26. It appears that the Petitioner who was in service working as Upper Division Clerk in Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, in Judgment 17 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt consequence of her caste invalidation, she was removed by way of penalty from the service by order of Respondent No.6 - Deputy Director General & Disciplinary Authority, dated 23/06/2019.
27. So far as objection with regard to the delay and laches is concerned, it is duly explained in para 14 of the petition. The Petitioner was facing departmental enquiry. In fact, vide order dated 27/06/2019, she was allowed to continue the service and was directed to be placed below in the list of general category candidates as on 28/11/2000. There is no limitation prescribed for filing in civil writ petition, however, it has to be a reasonable period. The order of removal came to be passed on 23/06/2022 and the petition came to be filed on 27/06/2022. Though the order of invalidation was on dated 02/02/2018, she has not challenged the same till filing of this petition, as she was continued as per the order dated 27/06/2019 placing her below in the list of general category candidates as on 28/11/2000. 28 As such, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee and consequential order Judgment 18 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt passed by the Deputy Director General & Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of removal from service is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 02.02.2018, passed in case
No. lvk@vtizrl@ukx@IV@1@31@2014, passed by the Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that she belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to issue the validity certificate of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks.
(v) The impugned order dated 23/06/2022 (shown as 23/06/2019), passed by the Deputy Director General and Disciplinary Authority, Ministry of Statistic and Programme Implementation, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Judgment 19 J-WP No.3679.2022.odt
(vi) The Respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the Petitioner in her original post with continuity of service and with all benefits. There shall be no recovery as contemplated by order dated 23/06/2022 (shown as 23/06/2019).
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/03/2026 16:24:32