IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 WRIT PETITION NO. 10692 OF 2025 Sachin Mallanna Aguwad VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Prakashrao Piratwad AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya ... CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. Dated : SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 ORAL ORDER : - (Per R. G. AVACHAT, J.) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner claims to belong to the ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee – refused to grant him a caste validity certificate. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court. 3. The petitioner’s father had been granted a validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. While granting validity to the petitioner’s father, a school entry of 1953 belonging to the petitioner’s great- grandfather was relied upon. The caste of the petitioner’s great- grandfather was recorded as ‘Mannervarlu’. During the inquiry into the validity proceedings of the petitioner’s father, the Vigilance Committee had inspected the school records and the said entry, the Vigilance Cell Page 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:26560-DB 917 WP 10692-2025 did not notice, or at least did not report, any anomaly in respect of the said entry. 4. Based on the same, the petitioner herein has not been granted validity. It is informed that the case of the petitioner’s father now been proposed to be reopened. 5. Relying on the oldest entry of 1953, which was examined by the Vigilance Cell during the inquiry concerning the petitioner’s father’s claim, who was granted a validity certificate, we find that the petitioner, being the son, ought to be granted a validity certificate. If, during any further inquiry of the matter, which may be proposed to be reopened, it is found that the said entry was forged or manipulated, the Scrutiny Committee may take an appropriate decision. Such a decision would be binding on the claim of the petitioner herein as well. 6. Since the father of the petitioner was granted a validity certificate, we propose to grant the petitioner a conditional validity certificate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Page 2 of 3 917 WP 10692-2025 ORDER (a) The petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 12/08/2025 passed by the respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. (c) The respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee, is directed to issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( R. G. AVACHAT, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 3 of 3