12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12787 OF 2025 Manthan S/o Vikas Adhatrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors Mrs. Vaishali Suryawanshi-Birajdar (through VC) a/w Mrs. Surekha H. Kamble, advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 22nd JULY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27th JULY, 2026 JUDGMENT: [PER: NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, invalidating his claim to belong to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe, together with the consequential action cancelling his admission to Respondent No.5 – S.K.N. Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. 1 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc 3. The petitioner asserts that he belongs to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe and had secured admission against a Scheduled Tribe seat on the basis of his CET score, subject to production of a caste validity certificate. His proposal was forwarded for verification, but upon vigilance enquiry the Scrutiny Committee rejected his tribe claim, as a result of which his admission came to be cancelled. 4. According to the petitioner, he had produced more than 54 documents in support of his claim, including old public records, school and birth extracts, service record material, and an adjudicatory order in favour of a close paternal relative. His grievance is that the Committee failed to attach due weight to the most probative material on record and instead rejected the claim on conjectural and legally untenable grounds. 5. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the family genealogy in support of the relationship between himself and the persons whose documents have been produced. The family tree relied upon by the petitioner is reproduced below: 2 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records placed before us, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documentary material on record discloses a clear and consistent pattern in the direct paternal line. It is urged that the Committee disregarded pre-independence and other official records, as well as a prior adjudicatory order affirming Scheduled Tribe status in favour of a paternal relative, and instead proceeded on speculative doubts regarding certain entries and on undue reliance upon affinity. 7. Learned AGP supports the impugned order and submits that 3 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc the Committee considered the vigilance report, genealogical material, school and other records, and was justified in concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish his tribe claim. It is contended that some entries were doubtful, some were generic in nature, and the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish affinity with the claimed tribe. 8. It is clarified at the outset that, in the present petition, we are concerned only with the legality of the order invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim and the consequential action taken pursuant thereto. We are not adjudicating upon the validity or applicability of the Government Resolution referred to in the prayers, nor are we separately considering the prayer seeking a direction to Respondents to confirm the petitioner's admission. 9. Now the question that arises is whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim to belong to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe despite the documentary material produced in support thereof. Few of the documents central to the petitioner’s case, and their relationship to him, may be conveniently set out thus: 4 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc Sr. No. Document description Date / period Relationship to petitioner Caste entry / finding 1 Appellate order of the then Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik, in allowing the appeal of Shri Mukesh Madhukar Adhatrao 10.07.1991 Paternal uncle Mahadev Koli (Scheduled Tribe) 2 Birth register extract of Vasant Baburao Appa Adhatrao 23.09.1936 Paternal ancestor in the family line Mahadev Koli 3 School leaving certificate of Maharashtra Tularam/Tukaram Baburao Adhatrao Date of birth 19.07.1943; certificate issued in 2005 Close paternal relative Hindu Mahadev Koli 4 Secondary school leaving certificatee of Madhukar Ramchandra Adhatrao Date of birth 11.06.1942; school leaving in 1958 Close paternal relative Mahadev Koli 5 Service record certificate issued by the Divisional Safety Officer, Central Railway, Solapur, in respect of Shri M.R. Mahatrao Employment period Paternal relative Hindu Mahadev Koli (Scheduled Tribe) 10. Read as a whole, the above material forms a consistent and credible documentary chain in the petitioner’s direct paternal line. In Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra others1 and Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that genuine pre-constitution documents carry the highest probative value in caste and tribe verification proceedings and must 1 (2023) 2 Mh.L.J.785 2 2012 (1) SCC 113 5 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc receive greater weight and that the affinity test is merely corroborative and not a litmus test. The Committee was, therefore, under a duty to accord due primacy to this class of evidence and could not lightly brush it aside. 11. In Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that interpolation or fabrication in public records cannot be inferred on mere conjecture or visual impression as to ink, handwriting, or the age and condition of the register. In the present case, the doubts entertained by the Committee regarding old records are unsupported by expert material and rest on no legally acceptable foundation. Such suspicion, by itself, was wholly insufficient to dislodge certified copies of public documents. 12. The Committee also appears to have attached undue significance to generic entries such as “Koli”. However, in Prabhu Narayan Survase v. State of Maharashtra4, in para 6 of the said judgment held that a general caste description such as “Koli” does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of the claimant belonging to “Mahadev Koli” Scheduled Tribe, and such entries must be assessed in the context of the entire documentary record. When the record as 3 2010 (1) ALL MR 957 (SC) 4 Writ Petition no. 1907 of 2003 6 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc a whole contains specific and repeated references to “Mahadev Koli” in the direct paternal line, a stray generic entry could not have been treated as destructive of the petitioner’s claim. 13. Viewed in the light of these settled principles, the impugned order discloses a fundamentally flawed approach. The Committee failed to accord due weight to the most probative material on record, magnified immaterial or conjectural discrepancies, and permitted the affinity test and generic entries to overshadow a consistent documentary chain extending across decades. The scrutiny expected of such a body is one of fairness, legal discipline and careful evaluation; what is reflected in the present case, however, is a mechanical and hyper-technical exercise which has resulted in the rejection of a genuine claim on wholly untenable grounds. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 14. We therefore, pass the following O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.3–Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, invalidating the 7 of 8 12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc petitioner’s claim to belong to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe, is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner belongs to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe. (iii) Respondent No.3 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, shall issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] Iresh 8 of 8 IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.07.27 12:14:49 +0530