Chattisgarh High Court
Indrapal Bhaskar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:17637
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: NAFR
2026.04.17
19:05:20
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 20.03.2026
Order Delivered on : 17.04.2026
WPC No. 840 of 2020
Indrapal Bhaskar, aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Johan Ram Bhaskar,
Occupation Service Assistant Teacher (LB) Primary School Jhikatola,
District Balod (Chhattisgarh), R/o Village and Post Badgaon, Tehsil
Daundilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya,
District Raipur (CG)
2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education
Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, District Raipur (CG)
3. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee through its Member
Secretary-cum-Director, Tribal and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Development, Office at Block-4D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG)
4. Collector, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Bhagat, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government
Advocate
2
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
CAV Order
1. Heard Mr. R.K. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2020 passed
by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, whereby the
caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been
cancelled, and the concerned authorities have been directed to
take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions
contained under Section 9(3) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short, 'Act
of 2013') as well as Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the
Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification)
Rules, 2013 (for short, 'Rules of 2013'). The petitioner has sought
for following relief(s) :-
"10.1 That the petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue
appropriate writ/order/direction for quashment
of impugned order dated 25.1.2020 contained
in ANNEXURE-P/1.
10.2 That the petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue
appropriate writ/order/direction to hold that the
3
caste certificate issued to the petitioner
contained in ANNEXURE-P/2 as valid.
10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper may also be
granted to the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was
issued a valid caste certificate by the competent authority
certifying him to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community
"Mahar". The said caste "Mahar" stands notified as a Scheduled
Caste under Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India in
the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and continues to retain the
same status in the State of Chhattisgarh after its bifurcation. The
petitioner, being duly qualified educationally, was appointed as
Assistant Teacher (LB) on 29.06.2007, after due consideration of
his eligibility and the benefit of reservation applicable to Scheduled
Caste candidates. Since then, he has been discharging his duties
and is presently posted as Assistant Teacher (LB) at Primary
School, Jhikatola, District Balod (Chhattisgarh). In the year 2013,
a vague and omnibus complaint was made against the petitioner
along with 17 other persons alleging that they had secured
appointment on the basis of forged caste certificates. Acting upon
such complaint, a preliminary enquiry is stated to have been
conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod and the
District Level Scrutiny Committee, and thereafter, the matter was
referred on 06.02.2013 to the High Power Certification Scrutiny
Committee.
4
4. Upon receipt of the reference, the High Power Certification
Scrutiny Committee initiated an enquiry and sought reports from
the Vigilance Cell as well as the Investigation Assistant. The
Vigilance Cell, after examining documentary evidence, recorded
certain findings. It noted that in the Missal Bandobast of the year
1930-31 pertaining to the petitioner's grandfather, namely
Sadaram, and his brother Ajab Singh, their caste was recorded as
"Mahara". It was further observed that the petitioner's father,
Johan Ram, at the time of his admission in Primary School in the
year 1947, had mentioned his caste as "Baya". At the same time,
the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner records his
caste as "Mahar", which is also reflected in the petitioner's school
records.
5. Statements of local villagers were also recorded, who affirmed that
the petitioner's family has been recognized in society as belonging
to the "Mahara/Mahar" community.
6. Despite such material, the Vigilance Cell arrived at a highly
erroneous and untenable conclusion by suggesting a new caste
category termed "Baya Mahara", which finds no mention in any of
the documents examined and is not a recognized caste.
Simultaneously, the Investigation Assistant conducted a detailed
enquiry into the petitioner's social status, including aspects such
as ancestral profession, mother tongue, family customs, deities,
and social acceptance.
5
7. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigation Assistant
submitted a report clearly concluding that the petitioner shares the
same social status and characteristics as members of the "Mahar"
Scheduled Caste community. However, the High Power
Certification Scrutiny Committee, while passing the impugned
order dated 25.01.2020, failed to properly appreciate the material
on record. The Committee ignored the affirmative findings of the
Vigilance Cell and completely overlooked the report of the
Investigation Assistant, which substantiated the petitioner's claim.
Without assigning cogent reasons and in disregard of the relevant
evidence, the Committee proceeded to cancel the petitioner's
caste certificate and directed consequential action under Section
9(3) of the Act of 2013, read with Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of
the Rules of 2013.
8. Being aggrieved by the said arbitrary and unsustainable action, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
9. Mr. R. K. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned action of the High Power Certification Scrutiny
Committee is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
constitutional scheme. By virtue of powers conferred under Clause
(1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the caste "Mahar"
stands duly notified as a Scheduled Caste in the erstwhile State of
Madhya Pradesh and continues to retain the said status even after
the bifurcation of the State and formation of the State of
6
Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that at Serial No. 31 of the
Presidential Order applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh, the
castes "Mahar", "Mehra" and "Mehar" are specifically recognized
as Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the very foundation of the
impugned order, whereby the caste status of the petitioner has
been doubted, is legally unsustainable. It is further contended that
the Scrutiny Committee has committed a grave error in completely
overlooking the settled principles governing verification of caste
status, particularly the requirement of conducting an affinity test. It
is well settled that determination of caste status cannot be based
solely on documentary evidence but must also take into account
anthropological and ethnological traits, customs, traditions, and
social acceptance of the individual. In the present case, the
Investigation Assistant of the Vigilance Cell had conducted a
detailed enquiry and categorically recorded a finding that the
petitioner shares identical social status, customs and traits with
other members of the "Mahar" community. However, the said
crucial report has been completely ignored by the Scrutiny
Committee without assigning any reason, thereby vitiating the
impugned order.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the Committee has failed to
appreciate that greater probative value is to be attached to pre-
Independence documents, as such documents are less likely to be
manipulated and carry higher evidentiary sanctity. In the present
case, the Missal Bandobast records of 1929-30 and 1930-31
7
clearly reflect the caste of the petitioner's ancestors as "Mahara",
which is synonymous with "Mahar". Despite this, the Committee
has discarded such vital evidence on flimsy grounds, while at the
same time relying upon inconclusive and inconsistent entries such
as "Baya". It is further submitted that no proper opportunity was
afforded to the petitioner to explain alleged discrepancies, nor
were the concerned authorities, such as the Head Master,
examined to verify the correctness of the records. It is also
contended that the Vigilance Cell itself has not recorded any
finding that the documents produced by the petitioner are forged
or fabricated. Rather, the entire adverse inference is based on
speculative observations regarding alleged corrections in certain
entries. Shockingly, the Vigilance Cell has proceeded to invent a
non-existent caste category, namely "Baya Mahara", which finds
no mention in any statutory notification or in any of the documents
on record. Such a conclusion is perverse and demonstrates
complete non-application of mind.
11. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 21 of the Rules
of 2013, where the Vigilance Cell report supports the claim of the
applicant, no further adverse action is warranted. In the present
case, the Investigation Assistant's report clearly supports the
petitioner's claim, and therefore, there was no occasion for the
Scrutiny Committee to take a contrary view. The deliberate
suppression of the favourable findings of the affinity test renders
the impugned order wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is
8
also argued that the invocation of Section 9(3) of the Act of 2013
and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the Rules of 2013 is wholly
misconceived, inasmuch as there is no finding that the petitioner
has obtained the caste certificate by fraud, misrepresentation or
any illegal means. In absence of any such finding, the drastic
consequences contemplated under the said provisions could not
have been triggered. The impugned action, therefore, amounts to
misuse of statutory powers.
12. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been serving as an
Assistant Teacher since the year 2007 and has an unblemished
service record. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the
petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss. It is further
pointed out that in respect of a close relative of the petitioner,
whose case is similarly situated, the caste certificate has already
been duly verified and upheld by the same Scrutiny Committee.
The petitioner has placed on record the said verification along with
the family tree to establish parity. In such circumstances, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in WPC No.842 of 2020 (Santosh Kumar Bhaskar v.
State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 06.03.2024.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned State counsel
opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
9
petitioner and submits that the entire writ petition is misconceived
and devoid of merits, as the petitioner has failed to discharge the
burden of proving his caste status as belonging to the "Mahar"
Scheduled Caste. The primary contention of the petitioner, that
there exists no caste such as "Baya Mahara", is factually incorrect.
Learned State counsel submits that "Baya Mahara" is a
recognized caste included in the Other Backward Classes (OBC)
category in the State of Chhattisgarh, as reflected at Serial No. 78
of the relevant State notification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
deny the existence of such caste merely to discredit the findings of
the Vigilance Cell. It is further submitted that the entire
proceedings were initiated on the basis of a specific and
substantiated complaint dated 18.08.2012 made by a member of
the Scheduled Caste community, wherein it was categorically
alleged that the petitioner, who actually belongs to "Baya Mahara"
(OBC), had fraudulently obtained a caste certificate of "Mahar"
(Scheduled Caste) and availed benefits meant for SC candidates.
The said complaint named the petitioner along with 17 others.
Upon preliminary inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Dondi-Lohara, it was found that prima facie the
petitioner belongs to "Baya Mahara" community. Consequently, the
matter was referred to the competent Scrutiny Committees for
detailed verification.
15. Learned State counsel further submits that due procedure as
prescribed under the Act of 2013 and the Rules of 2013 has been
10
strictly followed. The matter was examined at multiple levels,
including by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and
thereafter by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities of hearing,
including issuance of show cause notices and personal hearings
on multiple dates. Therefore, the allegation of violation of
principles of natural justice is wholly baseless. It is contended that
the Vigilance Cell, constituted in accordance with Rule 22 of the
Rules of 2013 and headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police,
conducted a thorough and detailed inquiry by examining revenue
records, school records, and statements of local villagers. The
Vigilance Cell, on appreciation of the entire evidence, categorically
concluded that the petitioner does not belong to "Mahar"
Scheduled Caste but belongs to "Baya Mahara" community, which
falls under the OBC category. The said report forms the backbone
of the proceedings and has rightly been relied upon by the High
Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.
16. Learned State counsel also submits that the reliance placed by the
petitioner on the report of the so-called "Investigation Assistant" is
misplaced and legally untenable. It is clarified that no such
statutory post exists under the Act or the Rules. At best, the report
relied upon by the petitioner is that of a Research Assistant, which
has no statutory backing and cannot override or dilute the findings
of the Vigilance Cell constituted under the statutory framework.
Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly given primacy to the
11
Vigilance Cell report. It is further submitted that the documentary
evidence produced by the petitioner itself creates doubt regarding
his caste status. The school admission register of the petitioner's
father clearly records the caste as "Baya", and there are
inconsistencies in other records, including indications of
manipulation in entries reflecting "Mahar". In contrast, revenue
records and other contemporaneous documents indicate the caste
of the petitioner's ancestors as "Baya" or related variants. In such
circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly concluded that
the petitioner failed to establish his claim of belonging to
Scheduled Caste.
17. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that once the caste
certificate of the petitioner has been found to be invalid, the
consequential action under Section 9(3) of the Act of 2013 and
Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the Rules of 2013 has rightly been
invoked. Since the petitioner has secured appointment against a
post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates without actually
belonging to such category, his appointment is void ab initio and
liable to be cancelled. It is thus prayed that the writ petition being
devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
18. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents at length
and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. I have also
12
carefully perused the pleadings, documents and material placed
on record, including the reports submitted by the Vigilance Cell,
the findings recorded by the High Power Certification Scrutiny
Committee, as well as the documents relied upon by the petitioner
in support of his claim.
19. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the controversy
involved in the present case lies within a narrow compass, namely,
the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated
25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny
Committee, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner has
been cancelled and consequential directions have been issued.
The Court is, therefore, required to examine whether the said
order has been passed in accordance with law, upon proper
appreciation of evidence on record and in adherence to the settled
principles governing determination of social status.
20. From perusal of the impugned order dated 25.01.2020, it
transpires that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee
has proceeded to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri
Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (AIR
1995 SC 94), as well as the provisions contained under the
Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act,
2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Committee has noted
13
that it was duly reconstituted vide notification published in the
Chhattisgarh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 21.02.2018, thereby
superseding the earlier constitution of the Committee. It further
transpires that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to a
complaint alleging that the petitioner and others had secured
public employment on the basis of false caste certificates. The
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dondi Lohara, District Balod
conducted a preliminary inquiry and, upon finding prima facie
substance in the allegations, referred the matter to the District
Level Scrutiny Committee, which in turn forwarded the case to the
High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee through the Assistant
Commissioner, Tribal Development, vide communication dated
06.02.2013 for detailed investigation.
21. The impugned order reflects that various documents relating to the
petitioner and his family members were taken into consideration
by the Committee. These included school records, revenue
records such as Kisanbandi Khatauni and mutation registers, as
well as genealogical records. Notably, certain documents,
including the school admission register of the petitioner's father
(year 1947), recorded the caste as "Baya", whereas the Misal
Settlement record of the year 1930-31 pertaining to the
petitioner's grandfather recorded the caste as "Mahara". Other
revenue records of subsequent years also reflected entries such
as "Baya" and "Baya Mahar". It is further evident that, in
compliance with the prescribed procedure, the Committee referred
14
the matter to the Vigilance Cell for detailed inquiry, which
submitted its report dated 22.07.2017 after examining
documentary evidence and recording statements of local villagers.
While the villagers reportedly identified the petitioner's family as
belonging to "Mahar" community, the Vigilance Cell, upon overall
assessment of the records, concluded that the petitioner belongs
to "Baya Mahara" caste, which is not included in the list of
Scheduled Castes in the State of Chhattisgarh. The impugned
order also indicates that the Committee had issued show cause
notices to the petitioner and afforded him opportunities of hearing
on multiple dates, including 13.12.2019 and 17.01.2020. The
petitioner submitted his replies and relied upon certain documents,
including pre-independence records and other supporting material
to establish his caste as "Mahar". However, the Committee found
that the petitioner failed to produce cogent documentary evidence
of sufficient probative value, particularly prior to the Presidential
Notification of 1950, to conclusively establish his claim. On the
basis of the Vigilance Cell report, documentary evidence on
record, and the material produced during the course of hearing,
the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner does
not belong to "Mahar" Scheduled Caste, but rather to "Baya
Mahara" community. Consequently, the caste certificate dated
24.10.2003 issued in favour of the petitioner was held to be invalid
and was cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 8(1) of the
Act of 2013 read with Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 2013. The
15
Committee further directed initiation of consequential action under
Section 9(3) of the Act of 2013 and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of
the Rules of 2013.
22. From perusal of Annexure P/4 dated 22.07.2017, it is quite clear
that the Vigilance Cell, upon conducting a detailed and
comprehensive enquiry in accordance with the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh, has categorically recorded a finding that the caste of
the petitioner/holder is 'Baya-Mahara' and not 'Mahar' as claimed.
It has further been specifically observed that the said caste 'Baya-
Mahara' does not find mention in the list of Scheduled Castes
notified for the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the report
unequivocally concludes that the petitioner does not belong to the
'Mahar' Scheduled Caste category, thereby rendering the caste
certificate issued in his favour liable to be treated as invalid.
23. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the material available on record, it is
significant to note that the earliest available documentary
evidence, i.e., the Misal Bandobast records of the years 1929-30
and 1930-31, unequivocally reflect that the petitioner's forefathers
were recorded as belonging to "Mahara" caste. The said entry,
being a pre-independence document, carries great evidentiary
value and credibility, inasmuch as such documents are presumed
to be free from manipulation and constitute the best evidence for
16
determining social status. Importantly, there is no whisper in these
records about any caste described as "Baya Mahara". The
introduction of such a nomenclature by the Vigilance Cell is,
therefore, wholly artificial, unsupported by any statutory
notification, and clearly dehors the material on record.
24. This Court further finds that the caste "Mahar" is a notified
Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution of India and
continues to hold such status in the State of Chhattisgarh. Once
the petitioner has produced cogent documentary evidence
establishing linkage with "Mahara/Mahar" caste, the burden shifted
upon the respondents to dislodge the same by leading clear,
cogent and convincing evidence. However, the respondents have
failed to discharge such burden. It is also apparent that the
Scrutiny Committee has committed a patent error in selectively
relying upon stray and inconclusive entries such as "Baya"
recorded in certain school documents, while discarding the more
reliable and probative pre-independence records without assigning
any cogent reason. The approach of the Committee, in this regard,
is contrary to the settled principles of appreciation of evidence in
caste verification matters.
25. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the statements
of independent villagers, recorded during the course of vigilance
enquiry, clearly support the petitioner's claim that his family has
always been recognized in society as belonging to the "Mahar"
17
community. The element of social acceptance, which forms a
crucial component of the affinity test, has thus been established in
favour of the petitioner. In addition, the report of the Investigation
Assistant (though sought to be discredited by the State)
categorically affirms that the petitioner shares the anthropological,
ethnological and customary traits of the "Mahar" Scheduled Caste
community. The complete non-consideration of such vital material
renders the decision-making process vitiated on account of non-
application of mind.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, including
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development (AIR 1995 SC 94), has laid down the procedure
and safeguards to be followed in caste verification proceedings,
emphasizing that such determinations must be based on a holistic
consideration of documentary evidence, affinity test and social
acceptance. Recently, the Supreme Court has reiterated that
greater reliance must be placed upon pre-independence
documents and that minor discrepancies in subsequent records
cannot override consistent and credible ancestral evidence. It has
also been held that findings of Scrutiny Committees must be
based on cogent reasoning and cannot rest on conjectures or
invented classifications.
27. In Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 8
SCC 430, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that
18
invalidating a caste claim in absence of fraud would not
automatically justify punitive consequences, thereby underscoring
the requirement of a strict standard of proof, by observing as
follows :-
"14. A careful reading of the above would show
that both the High Court as also this Court were
conscious of the developments that had taken
place on the subject whether 'Halba-Koshti' are
'Halbas' within the meaning of the Presidential
Order. The position emerging from the said
circulars, resolutions and orders issued by the
competent authority from time to time
notwithstanding, this Court on an abstract
principle of law held that an inquiry into the
question whether 'Halba-Koshti' were Halbas
within the meaning of the Presidential order
was not legally permissible.
15. The appellant before us relies upon the
above passage extracted above to argue that
her appointment had attained finality long
before the judgment of this Court was delivered
in Milind's case and even when she was found
to be a 'Koshti' and not a 'Halba' by the
Verification Committee, she was entitled to
protection against ouster.
16. We find merit in that contention. If 'Halba-
Koshti' has been treated as 'Halba' even before
the appellant joined service as a Teacher and if
the only reason for her ouster is the law
declared by this Court in Milind's case, there is
19
no reason why the protection against ouster
given by this Court to appointees whose
applications had become final should not be
extended to the appellant also. The
Constitution Bench had in Milind's case noticed
the background in which the confusion had
prevailed for many years and the fact that
appointments and admissions were made for a
long time treating 'Koshti' as a Scheduled Tribe
and directed that such admissions and
appointments wherever the same had attained
finality will not be affected by the decision taken
by this Court.
17. After the pronouncement of judgment in
Milind's case, a batch of cases was directed to
be listed for hearing before a Division Bench of
this Court. The Division Bench eventually
decided those cases by an order dated 12th
December 2000 (State of Maharashtra v. Om
Raj (2007) 14 SCC 488) granting benefit of
protection against ouster to some of the
respondents on the authority of the view taken
by this Court in Milind's case. One of these
cases, namely, Civil Appeal No.7375 of 2002
arising out of SLP No.6524 of 1988 related to
the appointment of a 'Koshti' as an Assistant
Engineer against a vacancy reserved for a
'Halba/Scheduled Tribe candidate. This court
extended the benefit of protection against
ouster to the said candidate also by a short
order passed in the following words:
"4. Leave granted.
20
5. The appellant having belonged to Koshti
caste claimed to be included in the
Scheduled Tribe of Halba and obtained an
appointment as Assistant Engineer. When his
appointment was sought to be terminated on
the basis that he did not belong to Scheduled
Tribe by the Government a writ petition was
filed before the High Court challenging that
order which was allowed. That order is
questioned in this appeal. The questions
arising in this case are covered by the
decision in State of aharashtra v. Milind1and
were got to be allowed, however, the benefits
derived till now shall be available to the
appellant to the effect that his appointment
as Assistant Engineer shall stand protected
but no further. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."
18. Reference may also be made to Punjab
National Bank v. Vilas (2008) 14 SCC 545. That
too was a case of appointment based on a
certificate which was later cancelled on the
ground that 'Halba Koshti' was not the same as
'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The High Court had
set aside the termination of the service of the
affected candidates relying upon a Government
resolution dated 15th June 1995 as applicable
to Punjab National Bank. While upholding the
said order, H.K. Sema, J. held the candidate to
be protected against ouster on the basis of the
resolution. V.S. Sirpurkar, J., however, took a
slightly different view and held that the
appointment made by the Bank having become
21
final the same was protected against ouster in
terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench
in Milind's case (supra). The question whether
the Government resolution protected the
candidates against ouster from service was for
that reason left open by His Lordship. Reliance
in support of that view was placed upon the
decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7375
of 2000 (wrongly mentioned in the report as
Civil appeal No. 3375 of 2000) mentioned
above. The Court observed:
"The situation is no different in case of the
present respondent. He also came to be
appointed and/or promoted way back in the
year 1989 on the basis of his caste certificate
which declared him to be Scheduled Tribe.
Ultimately, it was found that since a "Koshti"
does not get the status of a Scheduled Tribe,
the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the
said certificate holding that the respondent
was a Koshti and not a Halba. I must hasten
to add that there is no finding in the order of
the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner lacked in bona fides in getting the
certificate. I say this to overcome the
observations in para 21 in Sanjay K. Nimje
case. But it is not a case where the
respondent pleaded and proved bona fides.
Under such circumstances the High Court
was fully justified in relying on the
observations made in Milind case. The High
Court has not referred to the judgment and
order in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000
22
decided on 12-12-2000 to which a reference
has been made above. However, it is clear
that the High Court was right in holding that
the observations in Milind case apply to the
case of the present respondent and he
stands protected thereby".
19. Our attention was drawn by counsel for the
respondents to the decision of this Court in
Addnl. General Manager/Human Resource
BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) 5
SCC 336 in which the protection against ouster
granted by the decision in Milind's case was not
extended to the respondent therein. A bare
reading of the said decision, however, shows
that there is a significant difference in the
factual matrix in which the said case arose for
consideration. In Burde's case, the Scrutiny
Committee had found that the caste certificate
was false and, therefore, invalid. That was not
the position either in Milind's case nor is that
the position in the case at hand. In Milind's
case, the Scrutiny Committee had never
alleged any fraud or any fabrication or any
misrepresentation that could possibly disentitle
the candidate to get relief from the Court. In the
case at hand also there is no such accusation
against the appellant that the certificate was
false, fabricated or manipulated by
concealment or otherwise. Refusal of a benefit
flowing from the decision of this Court in
Milind's case may, therefore, have been
justified in Burde's case but may not be justified
in the case at hand where the appellant has not
23
been accused of any act or omission or
commission of the act like the one mentioned
above to disentitle her to the relief prayed for.
The reliance upon Burde's case (supra),
therefore, if of no assistance to the respondent.
20. The decision of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (2007) 14 SCC
481 relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondents was distinguished even by V.S.
Sirpurkar, J. in Vilas's case. The distinction is
primarily in terms whether the candidate
seeking appointment or admission is found
guilty of a conduct that would disentitle him/her
from claiming any relief under the extraordinary
powers of the Court. This Court found that if a
person secures appointment or admission on
the basis of false certificate he cannot retain
the said benefit obtained by him/her. The
Courts will refuse to exercise their discretionary
jurisdiction depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
21. The following passage from decision in the
Nimje's case is apposite:
"In a situation of this nature, whether the
Court will refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India or not would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. This aspect of the matter has been
considered recently by this Court in Sandeep
Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra
(2006) 7 SCC 501."
24
22. Applying the above to the case at hand we
do not see any reason to hold that the
appellant had fabricated or falsified the
particulars of being a Scheduled Tribe only with
a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the
matter of appointment as a Teacher. There is,
therefore, no reason why the benefit of
protection against ouster should not be
extended to her subject to the usual condition
that the appellant shall not be ousted from
service and shall be re-instated if already
ousted, but she would not be entitled to any
further benefit on the basis of the certificate
which she has obtained and which was 10
years after its issue cancelled by the Scrutiny
committee."
28. Recently, in Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1679, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held thus :-
"7. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer
to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification
of Tribe Claims. It would be relevant to refer
paragraph 22 of the said judgment which reads
thus:
"22. It is manifest from the aforeextracted
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
25
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
26
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 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."
[emphasis supplied]
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
27
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.
9. In the present case, the appellant has
placed on record the School Admission and
Leaving Extract in respect of his grandfather
namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad, recorded on
10th October, 1943 which indicates his caste
as Koli Mahadev. Though the report of the
handwriting expert is inconclusive as to
whether there is interpolation or not, we have
examined the said document with a magnifying
glass.
***
12. In view of the pre-Independence document which certifies that the appellant's grandfather, 28 Jalba Malba Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are of the considered opinion that a greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document.
However, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said document has been disbelieved.
***
14. We may also gainfully refer to a recent judgment of this Court rendered by the three learned Judges in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v.
State of Maharashtra4 which reiterated the position that the affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. It has been held that when the 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. It has been reiterated that the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.
"
29. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedent, it is quite vivid that the impugned action of the Scrutiny Committee cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The petitioner has produced consistent and credible pre- 29 independence documentary evidence reflecting his lineage from "Mahara/Mahar" caste, which, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, carries the highest probative value. The said evidence is further corroborated by the statements of independent villagers as well as the affinity test indicating social acceptance of the petitioner as a member of the "Mahar" community. In contrast, the conclusion drawn by the Scrutiny Committee is primarily founded upon stray and inconclusive entries such as "Baya" and an artificially coined expression "Baya Mahara", which finds no recognition either in statutory notifications or in the documentary record. The approach adopted by the Committee, in discarding reliable ancestral records and ignoring material evidence favourable to the petitioner, is clearly contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and reflects perversity and non-application of mind. Further, in absence of any cogent finding of fraud or misrepresentation, the drastic action of cancellation of caste certificate and initiation of penal consequences is wholly arbitrary and disproportionate.
30. This Court is also persuaded by the fact that the petitioner has been in continuous service since the year 2007 and has discharged his duties as an Assistant Teacher for a considerable length of time without any blemish or adverse remark. The long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner cannot be lightly disregarded, particularly when his initial appointment was made after due verification of his eligibility and caste status by the 30 competent authorities. The impugned action, if sustained, would not only result in loss of employment but would also visit the petitioner with serious civil and pecuniary consequences, thereby affecting his livelihood and dignity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where an employee has served for a long duration, the consequences of cancellation of caste certificate must be examined with greater caution, especially in absence of any finding of fraud.
31. It is further to be noted that the doctrine of proportionality, which is now well entrenched in administrative law, mandates that the action taken by the authorities must be commensurate with the gravity of the alleged misconduct. In the present case, there is no finding that the petitioner has indulged in any deliberate misrepresentation or fraud. The entire case rests upon doubtful and inconsistent entries, which by themselves are insufficient to dislodge the strong presumption arising from reliable ancestral records. Therefore, the extreme consequence of cancellation of caste certificate and initiation of penal action is clearly disproportionate and arbitrary.
32. This Court also finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that similarly situated persons within the same family have been granted validation of their caste status by the competent Scrutiny Committee. The principle of parity, which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, requires that similarly situated persons 31 be treated alike. In absence of any distinguishing feature, the denial of similar treatment to the petitioner renders the impugned action discriminatory and violative of the guarantee of equality before law.
33. The impugned order further suffers from the vice of non-
application of mind, inasmuch as it fails to consider relevant material on record while placing undue reliance on inconclusive and extraneous factors. The selective appreciation of evidence, coupled with complete disregard of vital documents and reports supporting the petitioner, vitiates the decision-making process. It is trite law that when a statutory authority exercises quasi-judicial powers, it is incumbent upon it to record clear reasons demonstrating application of mind to the material available on record. The absence of such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 suffers from manifest illegality, arbitrariness, perversity and non-application of mind. The findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are not borne out from the evidence on record and are liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 32
The impugned order dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P/2) is valid and subsisting in the eyes of law.
36. As a natural consequence, all further actions initiated or contemplated pursuant to the impugned order, including those under Section 9(3) of the Act of 2013 and the relevant Rules, shall stand quashed. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned proceedings.
37. The respondents are further directed to extend all consequential service benefits to the petitioner, including continuity of service and protection of his employment, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is judgment is judgment is uploaded on the website reserved pronounced Operative Full 20.03.2026 17.04.2026 ------ 17.04.2026