8-WP-10905-2004.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10905 OF 2004 Ku. Pushpashila D/o Punjabrao Bhuyar .....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .....Respondents ..... Mr. Roshan Suryawansi a/w K. K. Khamare, for the Petitioner. Ms. V. R. Raje, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 7th February, 2004 passed by the Respondent No.2-Chairman & The Dy. Director, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Giripeth Nagpur (M.S.) invalidating her Caste claim belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this Court, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.929 of 2018 dated 18th December, 2023. The said decision reads thus: Manisha 1/7 MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Digitally signed by MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.11 20:07:24 +0530 8-WP-10905-2004.doc “ Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). The Scrutiny Committee has not considered the validity certificates issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner while invalidating his caste claim. 3. The petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) which is enlisted at serial No.18 of the The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The petitioner was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Washim as an Assistant Teacher on 11.10.1993. His caste claim was referred to respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee by Zilla Parishad on 5.5.2015. 4. The petitioner has submitted the documents of his father Panjabrao Bhuyar dated 10.7.1947 in support of his caste claim of "Thakur", the school leaving certificate of Panjabrao dated 18.6.1942, dakhal kharij register of father of petitioner dated 18.6.1942, the entry of grand-father of the petitioner in death certificate of his son dated 27.9.1929, the birth entry of the daughter born to Narayan dated 21.10.1929, document showing son born to Narayan dated 9.11.1933, the caste of great grand- father Ambadas is also recorded as "Thakur" in the entry dated 1.3.1915 showing son born to him. All these documents produced by the petitioner are of Thakur entry. 5. The Vigilance Cell obtained birth extract of one Ambadas, who is stated to be the great grandfather of the petitioner. The caste of Ambadas is recorded as Bhat and birth date is recorded as 24.3.1924. The petitioner had relied upon the birth extracts to show that a son was born to Ambadas on 01.03.2015 and that his great grandchildren i.e. daughter and son of Narayan were born Manisha 2/7 8-WP-10905-2004.doc in the year 1929 and 1933. These documents reveals that the extract referred to in the vigilance report is not that of the great grandfather of the petitioner. Without considering his explanation and only relying on the document of Ambadas where the entry is shown as Bhat the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim. Another ground raised is of not matching affinity. 6. During the pendency of this petition the blood relatives of the petitioner received the validity certificates and by filing additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record that his five relatives have received the validity certificates. It is prayed that considering the ratio laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 the petitioner be issued the validity certificate. 7. The respondent No.1, has filed reply, stating that the oldest entry shows the caste of great grandfather of the petitioner as Bhat. The validity certificate of relatives relied on are issued after filing of this petition hence cannot be considered. Hence, respondent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. In view of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that five blood relatives have received the validity certificates of "Thakur" and as per the ratio laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) the petitioner is entitled for issuance of validity certificate of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). The persons whose validity certificates are produced before us by the petitioner are mentioned in the family tree, therefore, it is proved that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). The documents which are filed on record also prove that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). 9. Insofar as the aspect of affinity is concerned, this issue has now been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Manisha 3/7 8-WP-10905-2004.doc in its decision in Maharashtra. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785. It has been held therein that report of the Vigilance Cell cannot be treated as a litmus test. The entire material on record has to be considered while verifying the tribe claim of a candidate. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.” 4. In all fairness to the learned A.G.P., we must say that the learned A.G.P vehemently opposed the Petition. Learned A.G.P. submitted that, in respect of Caste Validity Certificates issued to some of the blood relatives of the Petitioner, a Review Petition was filed by the Respondents before this Court, Bench at Nagpur. In the Review Petition, one of the Petitioner-Santosh Bhaurao Bhuyar, son of Mr. Bhaurao Bhuyar gave up the Caste claim by stating that neither the Petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe in future, and that the limited protection which Santosh Bhaurao Bhuyar sought was for reinstatement in service, which was granted by this Court, Bench at Nagpur. It is pertinent to note that the decision in Santosh s/o Bhaurao Bhuyar Manisha 4/7 8-WP-10905-2004.doc Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 was made on 15th December, 2015. 5. We are not impressed by the submissions of learned A.G.P. that in view of the decision in Santosh’s case, this Petition be dismissed, for the reason that decision in respect of Petitioner’s real brother viz. Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar in Writ Petition No.929 of 2018 reproduced above is dated 18th December, 2023. The Order dated 18th December, 2023 in respect of the real brother of the Petitioner is in force and it is obviously open for the Respondents to file a Review Petition against the Order dated 18th December, 2023 if the contention is that such a decision suffers from a error apparent on the face of record. So long as the Order dated 18th December, 2023 is subsisting, the Petitioner being a close blood relative of Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar, who is his real sister, is also entitled to have Caste claim validated. It is submitted that the Petitioner is the real sister of Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar who has filed the Writ Petition No.929 of 2018. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Ors.2, the Petitioner being a close blood relative 1 Writ Petition No.1740 of 2009, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur 2 (2010) SSC Online Bom 1053 Manisha 5/7 8-WP-10905-2004.doc of Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar, is also entitled to have her Caste claim validated as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. For the aforesaid reasons, the present Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. It is however, made clear that in the event, a Review Petition is filed by the Respondents against the Order dated 18th December, 2023 in Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Anr.3 and any orders passed thereon, the issuance of the Validity Certificate in Petitioner’s favour would be subject to the outcome of the decision in the Review Petition. Hence, the following Order: ORDER (i) Keeping the liberty open, Writ Petition No.10905 of 2004 is allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 7th February, 2004 passed by the Respondent No.2-Chairman & The Dy. Director, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Giripeth Nagpur (M.S.) is set aside. 3 Writ Petition No.929 of 2018, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur Manisha 6/7 8-WP-10905-2004.doc (iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Certificate of Validity to Petitioner-Ku. Pushpashila as belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe within a period of six weeks from today. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. (vi) In view of above, Writ Petition No.10905 of 2004 stands disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Manisha 7/7