Bombay High Court
Hemlata D/O Shriram Chavhan vs S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7060-DB
1 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2574 OF 2024
Hemlata d/o Shriram Chavhan, age : 54 years,
Occ. Service, R/o Prabodhan Colony,
Hiwarkhed, Road, Telhara, Tq. Telhara,
District Akola.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Sai UttamVila, House No.3,
Near Rangoli Ground, Shastri Nagar,
Yavatmal, through its Member Secretary.
2. Zilla Parishad, Akola, through its Chief
Executive Officer.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no.1.
Ms Hemlata Jaipurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 07.07.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Heard. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner, who claims to be the caste of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, which is recognized at Serial No.44 in the list of Scheduled Tribe notification, received caste certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, from the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Manora. On the basis of same, she got appointment as Primary School Teacher and thereafter, on 06.11.1997, her claim was referred to the Respondent no.1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification.
4. From the year 1997 till the impugned order of respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 28.02.2024, almost four times the petitioner approached to this Court, time and again the matter was remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner.
5. In the present case, by the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the pre-constitutional era documents of her ancestral and further failed to establish her socio-cultural affinity before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
3 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that while referring the caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee she has referred the pre- constitutional era documents, which according to her clearly establishes that her forefather belongs to caste Thakur. The same were referred by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell issued show cause notice dated 23.10.2023. In response to the same, the petitioner filed her written submission. It is also seen that the petitioner to support her caste claim again filed some more documents before the Committee then again the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell. After verification of the additional documents produced by the petitioner, the Vigilance Cell on 30.01.2024 by recording objections as to how the documents produced by the petitioner, are no reliable to support her caste claim, seeks explanation from the petitioner.
7. The petitioner on 12.02.2024 tendered her detailed explanation and raised objections under Rule 12(2) of the the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short 'Rules, 2003') that unless reasons are recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, referring of such documents to the Vigilance Cell is not permissible. It is also made clear that time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarified that 4 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt the procedure laid down under Rules should be followed. So also, by giving every details as to how documents produced by her genuine, submitted detail explanation.
9. It is the submission of the petitioner that respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the legal position as laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scurtiny Committee and ors. 2010(6) Mh.L.J.401. He stated that before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner has relied upon the caste validity granted in favour of cousin brothers namely Sarthak Chavhan in Writ Petition No.4792/2019, Shejal Arun Chavhan in Writ Petition No.5023/2019 and Arun Narayan Chavan in Writ Petition No.5027/2019 decided by this Court and thereby granted them caste validity certificate. According to the petitioner they being the cousins of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have relied upon the same while considering the caste claim of the petitioner.
10. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee filed Affidavit dated 06.11.2024 and to substantiate the reasoning recorded by respondent no.1 Committee stated that as the Vigilance Cell has recorded adverse remark to the documents relied by the petitioner, and more particularly, by relying 5 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt upon the entries of alleged cousin maternal brother namely Prashant Govindrao Wardhekar, Ganesh Purushottam Kadam and Nandkishor and Purushottam of Kanzar/Bhat as well as the entries recorded in respect of sale-deed of maternal grandfather and maternal uncle the finding recorded by respondent no. 1 Committee cannot be faulted and consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. In support of submission the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws :
1. Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 (5) All MR 975;
2. Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors. 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401;
3. Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2023 SC 1657 ;
4. Writ Petition No.7320/2023 (Ganesh s/o Shridhar More and anr.
vs. The Vice Chairman Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal);
5. Writ Petition No.3711/2024 (Madhavi d/o Tukaram Ingle vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee).
12. In the background of above said factual position, we have appreciated the rival submission, perused the impugned order and the 6 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt documents on record as well as considered the judgments relied upon by the petitioner.
13. In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon the old documents which according to settled principles of law is having more probative value. In the present case, the Genealogical tree is available to show the relations of the petitioner with her ancestor, which reproduced hereunder :
14. It is further seen from the record that the petitioner in support of her caste claim on 28.11.2023 tendered 29 documents. The relevant old entries in the name of ancestral of the petitioner is reproduced as under :
7 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt v-dz- vtZnkjk'kh ukrs nlrkost nLrkost izek.ks fnukad @ tUe fnukad 1 Okkeu foBksck Bkdwj dksroky cqd 16-03-16 ¼i.ktksck½ uDdy 2- Okkeu Bkdwj dksroky cqd 04-04-19 uDdy 3- mRRke okeujko l[kkjke dksroky cqd 05-03-45 Bkdqj ¼dkdkP;k tUekph½ uDdy 4- Lk[kkjke mRRkejko Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk 05-12-1946 ¼dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 5 fuxZe oxZ 9 lfoZl cqd uDdy 5- mRre Bkdqj ¼nqxkZ½ ¼vkR;k½ dksroky cqd 1934 uDdy 6- Onkjdk mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk TkUe fnukad ¼vkR;k½ nk[kyk oxZ 1 01-07-1937 8- mRRkejko okeujko Bkdwj dksroky cqd 23-02-40 ¼Jhjke oMhy½ uDdy 9- 'ks"kjko mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGklksMY;kpk tUe fnukad ¼ oMhy½ nk[kyk oxZ 1@ 05-02-1940 oxZ 7@lfoZl cqd jsdkWMZ uqlkj uDdy@ tkr izek.ki= 10- Hkxoku okeu pOgk.k Bkdwj JsdkWMZ izek.ks tUe fnukad pqyr ¼vkckth½ f'k{kd ekfgrh 04-09-1904 lfoZl cqd uDdy jsdkWMZ izek.ks 11- rqdkjke mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGklksMY;kpk 16-04-32 ¼dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 1 fuxZe oxZ 7 lfoZl cqd uDdy tkrhpss izek.ki= 13- Hkxoku okeu Bkdqj pqyr dksroky cqd 14-05-35 ¼vkckth½ uDdy 14- foðy Hkxoku Bkdwj ¼pqyr 'kkGk lksMY;kpk 16-03-1932 dkdk½ nk[kyk fuxZe oxZ 1 15- Ukkjk;.k Hkxoku pOgk.k Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk tUe fnukad ¼pqyr dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 8 14-09-1935 22- jke--".k Hkxoku Bkdwj xq.ki=hdk fn 07-05-1946
15. After submitting these documents, respondent no.1 Caste 8 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt Scrutiny Committee forwarded same to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell verified the documents, put their remark as to why the said documents cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, on that basis, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.01.2024 asking her explanation.
16. On 12.02.2024, the petitioner tendered her written submission to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has raised the preliminary objection stating that as per Rule 12 of the Rules, the reasons are to be recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee while referring the matter to the Vigilance Cell.
17. Respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of preliminary objection, was required to deal with the same and communicate its decision. But we see no reply nor consideration of the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in the entire record. Hence, we concluded that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was not considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
18. It will be necessary to point out that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) has specifically held that in view of Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification 9 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, the application shall be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. But, in every case, as a matter of routine, Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry. As per Rule 12(2) of the Rules, only in case Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant, the documents can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. As a consequence, the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reason why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant.
19. In the present case, perusal of the record clearly demonstrates the fact that there is no compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, from the perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates the fact that in a very causal manner without recording any single reason and as of routine, the documents relied by the petitioner were referred to the Vigilance Cell. As such, it can be said that respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed grave error by not considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt
20. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner in her explanation to the report of Vigilance Cell, has specifically denied the documents which were relied upon by the Vigilance Cell in Column No.B1. Particularly about the entries of School record of Prashant Govindrao Wardhekar, Ganesh Purushottam Kadam and Nandkishor Purushottam Kadam by stating that they are not at all related to her nor they are the relatives of the petitioner. Hence, entries recorded in respect of those persons should not be considered in the matter. So also in respect of one Purushottam Shriram Chavan, who is the brother of the petitioner, the petitioner made it clear that he got appointment in the Zilla Parishad, Washim from open category. Therefore, there was no reason for him to apply for caste verification and furthermore, if the brother has been appointed from the open category, it is surprising how the petitioner can be deprived from taking the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe.
21. In respect of pre-constitutional era documents of great grandfather, grandfather, uncle, etc., the petitioner has categorically made a statement that all the documents pertaining to their school entries, showing thereby school entries and other documents showing their entry as a Thakur, are obtained from the Competent Authority by following due procedure of law, and therefore, such documents cannot 11 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt be denied on the technical reasons. Here one should take a note that pre-constitutional era, the people are not educated and not aware about the importance of the documents, therefore, there were some minor discrepancies while preparing the documents. As such, reasons for which respondent no. 1 Committee discarded the documents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. If reasons recorded by respondent no. 1 Committee is accepted, it would amount to disregard the pre- independance documents, which are otherwise found to be genuine and valid.
22. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner to substantiate the submission that all the documents were authentically obtained by her from the competent Authority, by her affidavit dated 06.11.2024, placed on record stated the source from which she has obtained the documents. Hence, we are satisfied of the fact that the documents relied by the petitioner being pre-constitutional era, having much more probative value and should not have been rejected by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on technical ground.
23. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has specifically relied upon the caste validity certificate of her cousin brother, niece and nephew issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee 12 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt after the judgment delivered by this Court on merits. As such, it is submission of the petitioner that once the validity of her cousins on the same pre-constitutional documents were accepted by the respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee, there was no reason to deny the caste validity certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), wherein this Court has held that if the blood relatives of the candidate from paternal side holding the validity certificate then the candidate is very much entitle for validity certificate for any further evidence. Applying the same yardstick, the petitioner is entitled for caste validity as like of her parental side relations.
24. According to the law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments, it is time and again held that the affinity test cannot be termed as litmus test. However the respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of affinity test only, rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence, the manner in which the Committee has considered the documents, is certainly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
25. The Committee has further relied upon the certain sale- transactions of properties of relatives of the petitioner with the non tribal persons, wherein according to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is 13 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt not recorded that the relatives of the petitioner that they belongs to Tribal caste. According to us, once we hold that pre-independence documents produced by the petitioner shows entry in revenue and school entry as Thakur Tribe, there is no reason to rely on the sale transaction, where no caste is mentioned. Hence, according to us, finding recorded by respondent no. 1 Committee are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
26. From the record, it is clear that there is no dispute about the family tree or relations. The Scrutiny Committee while recording the reasons has relied upon the some documents, which are belonging to maternal side of the petitioner. As per Rule 2(f) of the Rules, which defines the blood relations, the Committee is expected to verify the blood relations from paternal side of the petitioner. However, we find that instead of relying the caste of paternal side, most of the documents are relied of maternal side. As per the definition, the said relations cannot be termed as blood relations and accordingly, on this count also, the impugned order is not sustainable.
27. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Caste Scrutiny Committee without applying its mind, discarded the documents of pre-independance era, which are having more probative value. The reasons given are also not justified for discarding the 14 12.J.WP.2574.2024.odt documents when there are validity certificates of blood relatives placed on record. Furthermore, there is violation of the Rule 12(2) of the Rules. So also, the law laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), is also not followed in the matter.
28. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get the caste validity certificate of caste Thakur tribe. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) Impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.
1 Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is declare that the petitioner belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe which is recognized at Serial No.44 in the list of Scheduled Tribe Notification.
(d) The respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of production of this order.
29. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/07/2025 10:23:39