Judgment 1 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 20 18 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 2018 Sanjaysingh Laxmansingh Thakur, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service as Class IV/Peon at Jagdamba Vidyalaya, Wadgaon, Resident of At and Post Shirkhed, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 2) Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati through its Research Officer/Member-Secretary. 3) Babanrao Wadnere Education Society, Amravati, Sainagar, Amravati through its President. 4) Jagadamba Vidyalaya, Wadgaon Mahore, Tq. and Dist. Amravati through its Head Master. 5) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati. …. RESPONDENT S 2026:BHC-NAG:3261-DB Judgment 2 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2018 Vijay Laxmansingh Thakur, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad School (P. S. Morshi), Resident of At and post Ardhmani, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati through its Research Officer/ Member-Secretary. 3) Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati. 4) Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati. …. RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. H. D. Futane, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 in WP No.1198/2018 and for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in WP No.1555/2018. Mr. S. R. Babhulkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in WP No.1198/2018. Mr. S. M. Bhangde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in WP No.1555/2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Res.No.4 is Corrected as per order dated 25.02.2026 Judgment 3 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , JJ . DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19/01/ 202 6 DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12/02/2026 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent and request of the parties. 2. The Petitioners herein by these petitions are challenging the impugned orders passed by Respondent - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 23/01/2018, thereby invalidating the Petitioners’ claim as they belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 3. The Petitioner in WP. No 1198/2018 is a Class IV/Peon at Jagdamba Vidyalaya, Wadgaon, whereas, the Petitioner in WP. No 1555/2018 is an ‘Assistant Teacher’ in Zilla Parishad School (P. S. Morshi). As both the Petitioners are brothers and are aggrieved by the orders passed by Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, hence, both these petitions are decided by this common judgment and the Writ Petition No.1198/2018 is to be considered as lead petition. Judgment 4 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt 4. The Petitioner submits that for the purpose of verification of his Scheduled Tribe claim, he submitted his claim along with documentary evidence before the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee brushed aside the evidence submitted by the Petitioner due to certain adverse entries of the persons, who happen to be unrelated to the Petitioner. 5. The Petitioner contended that the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell, was improper as the Scrutiny Committee relied upon entries of persons who are not blood relatives of the Petitioner while discarding genuine documentary evidence of the years 1948, 1950 and 1954. The Petitioner seeks remand of the matter for fresh consideration or, in the alternative, a declaration that he belongs to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe on the basis of entries of Jangalsingh (1948) and Kisansingh (1950). 6. The petitioner has been in continuous service since his initial appointment. Even after the invalidation order dated 23/01/2018, no action has been initiated by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and the Petitioner continues in service. 7. The Petitioners also submitted that the Police Vigilance Cell report itself is flawed and based on an improper enquiry. The Judgment 5 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt genealogy submitted by the Petitioner’s father, which forms part of the Vigilance Cell report, does not support the adverse entries relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee. Even as per the said genealogy, the entries relating to Anandrao (1916), Ku. Urmila Bhaiyalal (1954), the birth entries of Lobhi (1953), Nani Jangalsing (1955) and Kishorsingh (1957) do not pertain to the Petitioner’s blood relatives. Excluding these irrelevant entries, only the genuine records of 1948 and 1950 remain, which clearly mention the caste as “Thakur”. Despite the detailed reply submitted on 03/03/2016, the Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the same and did not conduct a proper enquiry pursuant to it. 8. The Petitioner further produced documentary evidence, the records prior to 1950 are enlisted in a table below for the sake of brevity. Sr. No. Document type Name on the document Relation with the petitioner Tribe Date 1. Birth Extract Khumansingh JangalSingh Uncle Thakur 03.09.1950 2. School transfer certificate Gaurishankar Kishanlal Thakur Thakur 07.04.1943 3. School Admission register entry Gaurishankar Kisanalal Thakur Thakur 09.01.1937 Judgment 6 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt 4. School Admission register entry Bhaiyyalal Kisanlal Thakur Thakur 31.12.1926 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance in the judgment of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2023(2) Mh.L.J 785. 10. Per Contra, the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee submitted that in order to verify the claim of the Petitioner, the Committee conducted inquiry through its Police Vigilance Cell and the Cell submitted its enquiry report on 14/01/2016 and the copy of the report was served to the Petitioner with show cause notice, to which the Petitioner submitted its reply on 03/03/2016 and the Petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing. 11. Furthermore, the Police Vigilance Cell conducted another enquiry and submitted its report on 28/09/2017, the documentary records from 1916 to 1957 showed caste entries such as Pardesi, Bramhbhat, Rajput, and Pardeshi Thakur, creating serious doubt about the Petitioner’s caste status. Since the term “Thakur” is used both for a Scheduled Tribe and an upper caste, documentary evidence alone was found insufficient, and the affinity test became necessary, which the Petitioner failed to satisfy. Judgment 7 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt 12. The Petitioner also failed to prove migration from notified Scheduled Areas and could not discharge the burden of proof under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act, 2001. In the absence of valid caste certificates of close relatives and considering socio-cultural traits, education, and economic background, the Committee rightly invalidated the Petitioner’s claim by order dated 23/01/2018. 13. The Adverse entries found by the vigilance cell are enlisted in the table below- Sr.No Document Type Name on the document Relation with the petitioner Tribe Date 1. Birth Extract Anandrao Grand- father Pardesi 20.03.1916 2. School Admission Entry Urmilla Bhaiyyalal Paternal Aunt Brahmbhat 30.07.1954 3. Birth Extract Nani Jangalsing Father’s Aunt Pardesi 20.10.1955 4. School Admission Entry Kishorsing Jangalsing Thakur Uncle Pardesi Thakur 12.11.1957 5. School Admission Entry Kisansing Gangasing Great grand- father Rajput Page torn out 6. Birth Extract Kishorsing Anandsing Uncle Pardesi Thakur 31.07.1964 7. Birth Extract Kishorsing Anandsing Uncle Pardesi 12.11.1957 Judgment 8 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt 14. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Additional Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 15. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as under : 16. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, it reveals that firstly, the Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by observing certain contra entries, showing caste of blood relatives as ‘Pardeshi’, ‘Bramhabhat’, ‘Pardeshi Thakur’, etc., second ground for invalidation is original place of living of the applicant’s family was never included in the area scheduled for ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ and thirdly, the Judgment 9 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt invalidation is on the ground of affinity test. The oldest documents produced by the petitioners before the Caste Scrutiny Committee are of 09/01/1937 and 31/12/1926. However, the same are discarded by the Committee on the ground that no blood relation was found. In fact, remark of Vigilance Cell in respect of these two documents is correct. Neither there is any person by name Gaurishankar in the family tree, nor there is any person by name Bhaiyyalal Kisanlal Thakur. However, the document of 03/09/1950 in respect of Khumansingh Jangalsingh is in blood relation of the petitioner. Another document of 30/04/1954 pertaining to Laxmansingh Anandsingh Thakur (father of the petitioner) is also duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. So far as the contra entries mentioned in para-5 of the impugned order are concerned, there is no person by name Anandrao mentiioned at Sr.No.1, but there is Anandsingh in the family tree and there are no details of this Anandrao about his father’s name, surname, etc. As such, he cannot be held to be in relation with the petitioner. 17. So far as the document at Sr.No.2 is concerned, it is in respect of Ku.Urmila Bhaiyyalal, this name is also not appearing in the family tree. Similarly, the document at Sr.No.3 pertaining to birth extract of Nani Jangasing is also not appearing in the family tree of Judgment 10 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt the petitioner. So far as the documents at Sr.Nos.4, 6 and 7 are concerned, there is no person by name Kishorsingh in the family tree of the petitioner. Similarly, there is no person mentioned at Sr.No.5 by name Kisansingh Gangasing in the family tree of the petitioner. As such, all the documents relied on by the Scrutiny Committee showing ‘Pardeshi’, ‘Bramhabhat’, ‘Rajput’ ‘Pardeshi Thakur’, etc. are not of the persons relating with the petitioner. It is surprising that the Caste Scrutiny Committee observed that these documents are obtained from the Government offices, hence, these entries were highest probative value of evidence, because these entries have been recorded by the Government Officials in the course of their duties. However, the Committee failed to establish that these persons are in relation with the petitioners. 18. In the extract of admit cancel register pertaining to Laxmansingh Anandsingh, the date of admission is shown as 30/04/1954 and the date of birth is shown as 01/04/1948; wherein caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. This document is produced by the petitioners as well as procured by the Vigilance Cell. Another old document is of 03/09/1950 in respect of a son born to Jangalsingh Kisansingh, wherein caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. The said document was also procured by the Vigilance Cell. The show cause notice Judgment 11 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt issued by the Committee refers only two documents, however, these two documents are not mentioned in the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee showing contra entries. There is no reference of document pertaining to Jangalsingh Kisansingh in para-5 of the judgment. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entry pertaining to 1955 in respect of Jangalsingh Kisansingh showing him as ‘Pardeshi’ and name of child born as Nani, the date of birth is shown as 20/10/1955. Whereas, he placed on record AADHAR card of Nanubai Chainsingh Bais, wherein her date of birth is shown as 01/01/1953. If reply to show cause notice given by the petitioners is perused, he has specifically denied the persons having caste ‘Pardeshi’, ‘Bramhabhat’, ‘Rajput’ and ‘Pardeshi Thakur’ procured by the Vigilance Cell are not in relation with the petitioners. However, it appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not at all considered the reply filed by the petitioners. It is time and again directed by this Court that only entry of persons having similar name does not suffice, but his details should match with the family tree. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein Hon’ble Judgment 12 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt Supreme Court held in paras-20 and 36, which are reproduced as under: “20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil. It lays down that the documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre- Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order. In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all. 36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that: (a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise. (b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim; and (c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process Judgment 13 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.” 20. In view of removal of area restrictions, the observation of the Scrutiny Committee is that it is not established by the petitioners that, their natives migrating from scheduled area, is having no substance. It is an admitted fact that there are documents showing entry of ‘Thakur’, one is 1950 and others are 1954 and 1957 showing consistently caste as ‘Thakur’. In view thereof, the petitioners are entitled to the validity certificates as they belong to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. 21. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee recorded perverse, erroneous findings and failed to establish how the contra entries procured by the Vigilance Cell are in relation with the petitioners. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has not given any consideration to the reply filed by the petitioners to show cause notice. As such, we are inclined to allow the present petitions by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee. 22. In view of above conclusions, both the petitions are allowed. Judgment 14 J-WP No.1198.2018+1Corrected.odt 23. The impugned orders dated 23/01/2018, passed in case Nos.JC/TCSC/AMT/SLT/283/2013 (in Writ Petition No.1198 of 2018) and JC/TCSC/AMT/5-ST/2014 (in Writ Petition No.1555 of 2018), by the respondent–Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati are hereby quashed and set aside. 24. It is declared that the petitioners have duly established that they belong to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. 25. The respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners within a period of four weeks. 26. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak/KHUNTE