15-wp-3-2025.doc jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3 OF 2025 Gauri Rajendra Gangavane ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17457 OF 2024 Aruna Arjun Gangawane ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ---------- Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Priyanka Shaw and Mr. Jagdish Kawale for the Petitioner. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP in WP No.3 of 2025. Shri P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP in WP No.17457 of 2024. Mr. Abhijit Gosavi for Respondent No.3 – Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad in WP No.17457 of 2024. Mr. Krishna Tukaram Chavan, Authorized by Krushali Krishna Chavan, Incharge Head Master of ZPPurva Prathamik School, Kudal, Sangirde. ---------- CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. O R D E R: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 1/9 JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Digitally signed by JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Date: 2026.09.17 11:19:34 +0530 15-wp-3-2025.doc 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned Order dated 9th September, 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thane (“Scrutiny Committee”). Further, it be held that the Petitioner belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe, and the Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee be directed to issue Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioner. 2. By an Order dated 4th September 2025, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in view of the Petitioner having been allotted a College, viz. MET's Institute of Management, Mumbai for the Master's Course, and it was directed that this allotment shall not be cancelled until the next date. The ad-interim order has been continued thereafter and is operational today. 3. By a subsequent Order dated 3rd September 2026, this Court had recorded the statement of learned AGP appearing for Respondent – State that there are documents which were before the the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee and which will be produced on the next date viz. today. Direction was issued to Respondent - State to grant inspection of the original documents 2/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc which they are relying upon to the Petitioner prior to the next date. 4. The Respondent - State has thereafter granted inspection to the Petitioner and has submitted a compilation of documents as directed by this Court. The original School Record/School Register has also been produced by the Respondent - State today. 5. Mr. Laxman Krishnat Tukaram Chavan, who was In- charge Head Master of the School viz. Zilla Parishad Primary School, Kudal, Sangirde is present today. 6. Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has referred to the compilation of documents which have been produced by the Respondent – State. He has submitted that apart from these documents, there is one document viz. Extract of the School Register showing Entry No.28 which is relevant and has not been produced. This pertains to the Entry of Dashrath Ladu Gangavane and his caste being that of Hindu Thakar as well as the date of admission to Primary School viz. 9th January, 1950. The said Entry has not been considered by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. 3/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc 7. Mr. Mendadkar has taken this Court through the documents forming part of the compilation produced by the Respondent – State. This includes at Page No. 3, an Extract of the school Register showing Entry 144 which refers to the said Entry 28. Here Dashrath Ladu Gangavane has been shown as Hindu Thakar. He has submitted that there is no interpolation in so far as these Entries are concerned. 8. Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee had relied upon the Extract of the School Register at Page No. 1 of compilation of documents, which includes Entry 66 to hold that there is interpolation by adding the caste Maratha Thakar. This finding is without considering the prior Entry 28 wherein Dashrath Ladu Gangavane, has been shown having caste Hindu Thakar without there being any interpolation. 9. Mr. Mendadkar has in this context taken this Court through the relevant findings in the impugned order. He has submitted that the relevant Entries in the School Register ought to have been considered in totality and which includes Entry 28. He has accordingly sought for the matter to be remanded back in order for it 4/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc to be heard de novo by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. 10. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent - State has placed reliance upon the Affidavit-in-Reply of the Respondent - State, and in particular Paragraph 4, where it is averred that upon reviewing the original records of the validity holder Shri Dashrath Ajay Gangavane, it is observed that sworn Affidavit regarding genealogy was submitted before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee on 4th September 2017. Upon examining the genealogy, it is noted that the great-grandfather of the validity holder, Shri Dashrath Ajay Gangavane, is recorded as Shri Ladu Vishram Gangavane. Also during the inquiry conducted by the Police Vigilance Cell, the Petitioner's father provided a different name as Shri Ladu Govind Gangavane for the great-great-grandfather. He submitted that this has been taken into consideration by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. He has accordingly submitted that the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, by giving due weightage to the aforesaid fact, has arrived at the order invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner. 11. Having considered the submissions, as well as taking 5/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc note of the compilation of documents which have been produced before this Court and the original School Register which has been tendered by Mr. Krishna Tukaram Chavan, who is present in Court, it appears that there is Entry 28 in the original School Register, which the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee had overlooked, and which Entry has been referred to in subsequent Entry 144 in the School Register which was placed before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. In Entry 28, the paternal uncle of the Petitioner, viz. Dashrath Ladu Gangavane's caste has been shown belonging to Hindu Thakar caste, and from a plain reading of this Entry there is no interpolation. 12. The Respondent - State has relied upon subsequent Entry 66 in respect of Dashrath Ladu Gangavane, contending that there is interpolation in the caste Maratha Thakar which weighed heavily with the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. However, the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered other relevant entries in the School Register which includes the said Entry 28. 13. In the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No. 2, it is 6/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc contended that there is a different genealogy produced by the Petitioner's father as against the genealogy produced by Dashrath Ajay Gangavane before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee which fact weighed with the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in the passing of the impugned Order. 14. By keeping the rights and contentions of the parties, including the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No. 2 open, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, particularly in view of the relevant Extracts of the original School Register not having been considered in their entirety. 15. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 9th September 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. 16. The matter is remanded back for de novo hearing by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, including considering the aforementioned material which has been produced before this Court viz. the relevant Extracts of the original School Record/Register in 7/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc their entirety. The de novo hearing and passing of decision shall be concluded within a period of four weeks from uploading of this order. 17. The rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open to be determined by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee in the de novo hearing as directed. 18. Till, the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee passes its decision, the admission of the Petitioner in MET's Institute of Management, Mumbai for Master's Course shall not be cancelled. 19. Further, in the event an adverse order is passed against the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s admission in MET's Institute of Management, Mumbai shall not be cancelled for a period of two weeks from the communication of the decision. 20. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. The Writ Petition No. 17457 of 2024, which has been tagged along with the above Petition, has been wrongly tagged and is 8/9 15-wp-3-2025.doc required to be placed before the appropriate bench. Accordingly, the Registry shall de-tag this Writ Petition and place before appropriate bench. [ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ] 9/9