wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7358 OF 2022 Shashikant s/o Murlidhar Kadam, Aged about 50 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur – 440032. .... PETITIONER // VERSUS // The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashipura, Amravati. .... RESPONDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Chutkey, AGP for respondent/State. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 20.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.08.2026 JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 18.08.2022, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Serial No.44 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 2026:BHC-NAG:11182-DB wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (2) 1950. The petitioner was granted a Caste Certificate dated 28.05.1990 by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the employer, at the relevant time, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Junior Clerk’ on the establishment of Technical Institute, Nagpur from the open category. Though the petitioner was appointed from open category, the proposal of the petitioner for caste verification is forwarded by the employer in the year 2015. The petitioner contended that he has not taken any reservation benefits on the basis of the Caste Certificate till date. The services of the petitioner have attained permanency with effect from 14.09.2022. The proposal of the petitioner was forwarded for verification, therefore, the petitioner submitted various documents including pre-constitutional documents showing his great-grandfather was recorded as ‘Thakur’, and thereafter, there are consistent entries showing his forefathers belonging to the ‘Thakur’. Despite consistent entries showing the petitioner as a ‘Thakur’, the Vigilance Committee collected some adverse entries showing persons by name Tijaram, Madho, Laxman Madho and Laxman Madhav as a ‘Bhat’. As per the Vigilance Committee, they are grandfather, cousin great-grandfather and cousin grandfathers of the petitioner. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner has filed reply and disowned the relationship with the said persons. Despite the explanation, the wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (3) Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner could not prove his caste claim as well as on the affinity ground. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel Ms. Preeti Rane for the petitioner, who reiterated the contentions and submitted that the Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance Committee were swayed away by the adverse entry, which is in the name of Tijaram, whereas the family tree of the present petitioner shows that his grandfather was not Tijaram, but he was Tejram. She further submitted that the document of the year 1915 i.e. pre-constitutional document showing his great-grandfather Zango as a ‘Thakur’, while taking birth entry of female child of said Zango. Similarly, the entry regarding his aunt consistently in the school record as well as in birth record showing her caste as ‘Thakur’. Thus, two pre-constitutional entries which have not been denied by the Committee, sufficiently shows that petitioner has succeeded in proving his caste claim. Despite the said documents, the Committee relied upon the Vigilance report, wherein the Vigilance Officer has collected the entry of one Tijaram and his successors with whom the petitioner is not at all connected and, therefore, the entire contention of the Scrutiny Committee that wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (4) petitioner could not prove the caste claim deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering the adverse entries in the name of Tijaram, Madho and Laxman consistently showing the forefathers of the petitioner as a ‘Bhat’ and, therefore, the Committee considered this aspect and rightly rejected the claim. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, it reveals that the family tree of the present petitioner which is reproduced as under: oa'kkoG ukjk;.k ¼[kkij Ik.ktksck½ >kaxks ¼Iktksck½ rstjke ¼vktksck½ dey ¼vkR;k½ eqjyh/kj ¼oMhy½ euksgj ¼dkdk½ 'k'khdkar dne ¼vtZnkj@izfrKkFkhZ½ 8. The family tree shows that Narayan is the ancestor i.e. great-great-grandfather of the present petitioner had one son Zango. Said Zango has one son Tejram and Tejram was having one daughter and two sons namely Kamal, Murlidhar and Manohar. The petitioner has placed on record the wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (5) pre-constitutional entry dated 15.11.1915, which shows that great-grandfather of the present petitioner namely Zango was recorded as ‘Thakur’ when the birth entry of his daughter was taken on 15.11.1915. Similarly, Kamal was shown to be the real sister of the father of the present petitioner, who was admitted in school on 31.08.1949 and her birth date was 03.06.1942, who was also recorded as ‘Thakur’. The School Leaving Certificate of Kamal Tejram Kadam issued by Municipal School, Amravati also shows that she was recorded as ‘Thakur’. Thus, these two entries of a pre-constitutional era discloses great-grandfather of the present petitioner Zango was recorded as ‘Thakur’. Similarly, his aunt Kamal was also recorded as ‘Thakur’. The Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the caste claim of the present petitioner to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance report was submitted on 29.04.2016. The entries in the name of Tejram Zango and Kamal were verified by the Committee. During the Vigilance inquiry, the Vigilance Officer has recorded the statement of Shashikant Murlidhar Kadam i.e. present petitioner, who has also stated that Narayanrao was the ancestor having two sons Zangoji and Madhoji. Said Zangoji was also having one son and two daughters, whereas Madhoji was having two sons. Present petitioner is the son of Murlidhar, who is the son of Tejram. wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (6) 9. On perusal of the documents collected by the Vigilance report, which shows that one Tijaram Zango was recorded as ‘Bhat’, who was having daughter by name Kamal. Madho Narayan was recorded as a ‘Bhat’ and Laxman Madho was also recorded as ‘Bhat’. On scrutiny of the said documents, it reveals that Kamal is not the daughter of Zango in the present case. Kamal is the daughter of Tejram i.e. the aunt of the present petitioner. Whereas, the documents collected by the Vigilance shows that Tijaram was having daughter by name Kamal. Here Kamal is the daughter of Tejram and not Tijaram. The birth date of said Kamal is 03.06.1942, whereas the birth date of Kamal daughter of Tijaram, whose document was collected by the Vigilance Cell, shows her birth date as 08.12.1942. Thus, prima facie it is apparent that the daughter of Tijaram Kamal and daughter of Tejram Kamal born on two different dates. Similarly, another document collected by the Vigilance Officer shows that entry of Laxman Madhav, who was recorded as ‘Bhat’, while taking entry of birth of his son Sharad, wherein the name of the father of Laxman was shown as Madhav, whereas, in the present case, one of the sons of Narayanrao was Madhoji. Thus, there is a difference in the name of Madho and Madhav. It is apparent that the Committee was swayed away by the similarity in names and invalidated the claim of the present petitioner. In fact, the consistent two documents, which are wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (7) pre-constitutional documents having highest probative value was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee. His consistent entries of ‘Thakur’ caste since 1915 strongly support the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to the ‘Thakur’ caste. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others MANU/ SC/1070/2025 by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors, MANU/SC/1316/2011, has observed in para 22 which reads as under: “It is manifest from the afore extracted 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 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 wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (8) 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 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.” 11. In the case of Anand (supra), wherein also this aspect was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and observed 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 wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (9) 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. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner is also rejected on the ground of affinity test. As already observed in various decisions, the affinity test shall be used for the purpose of corroboration, but it should not be held as a litmus test. On the point of affinity test, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Anand (supra), wherein it is observed that “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 wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (10) 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.” 13. Needless to add that burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant. Here, the petitioner had already produced all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The caste Scrutiny who merely performs the role of verification of the claim and, therefore, can scrutinize the documents and material produced by the petitioner. It is specifically observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra) that the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove the claim of the petitioner. wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (11) 14. Despite above said observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra), we have consistently observed that the Committee is taking it as an adversarial litigation and collecting the documents and gathering evidence to disprove the claims of the applicants in various matters. The role of the Committee is already determined by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, it is apparent that Committees at various district levels are ignoring the same and using these documents to disprove the claim of the applicant therein, such practice requires to be deprecated. 15. On the basis of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. 16. The impugned order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 18.08.2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The petitioner is declared as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 18. The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati shall issue the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner of a ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. wp.7358.2022.Judgment.odt (12) 19. Rule is made absolute in the above said terms. No order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate. Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 18:54:36