14-WP-10434-2010 .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10434 OF 2010 Meena d/o Shivraj Payak .....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .....Respondents ..... Mr. N. C. Phadnis (through V.C.), for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sachin Wadhawe, Law Officer, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gondia. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 3. Heard learned Addl.G.P. for the Respondent-State. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division was not justified in applying the affinity test in the Manisha 1/7 MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Digitally signed by MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.30 18:11:20 +0530 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc present facts as there are pre-constitutional documents of the Petitioner’s father as well as uncle which are at page nos.76 and 78 of the paper book which clearly indicates that the caste is recorded as ‘Thakur’. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 held as under : 21. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the application to the vigilance cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. Therefore, in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to vigilance cell for conducting an enquiry. When sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should be referred to vigilance cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the case to the vigilance cell, application of mind to the material produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the application of mind must be reflected in the order-sheets of the Scrutiny Committee. 22. 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 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 1 (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415 Manisha 2/7 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc 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. 23. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur case?), the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has noted that people having the surname "Thakur" belong to both forward castes and various backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that in every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur, it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in Entry 44 of the Maharashtra List. However, we must note that in the case of a person having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school or college records or any official records concerning the applicant or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons having the surname Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the case to vigilance cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every case should not mechanically refer the case to the vigilance cell for conducting an enquiry including affinity test. The reference to the vigilance cell can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. (emphasis supplied) 6. This being the position, in view of the decision in case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), Manisha 3/7 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc there would have been no hesitation on our part in allowing the Petition. However, from the findings of the Scrutiny Committee we find that, there are some documents on record which mentions the caste of the paternal ancestor as ‘Kshatriya’. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the caste ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya) on documents at Sr. nos.27, 28 and 29 was relied by the Scrutiny Committee. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya) is not mentioned as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or forming part of Other Backward Caste in any of the relevant Notifications. It is submitted that only on the basis of the affinity test the caste claim of the Petitioner is rejected without properly considering the pre- constitutional documents. 8. Learned Addl.G.P. on the other hand supported the impugned Order. It is submitted that the impugned Order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is a well reasoned order. It is submitted that all the documents have been duly considered and since there were documents on record which clearly mentions the caste of his paternal ancestor as ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya), the caste claim of the Petitioner was rightly rejected resorting to the affinity test. It is submitted that the Manisha 4/7 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc affinity test was not the sole basis for rejecting the caste claim but the Scrutiny Committee has also taken into consideration that there are documents on record indicating the caste of the Petitioner’s paternal ancestors as belonging to ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya). 9. Heard. A perusal of the impugned Order reveals that though the documents relied upon by the Petitioner have been adverted to, the Scrutiny Committee, in paragraph no.23(e) has observed that the pre-constitutional documents cannot be accepted, as the Petitioner has utterly failed in the vital affinity test. No doubt, there is a reference to some other documents where the caste of the paternal ancestors has been recorded as Chattri (Kshatriya) but in our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee was overwhelmed with the affinity test. 10. It is well settled law that the affinity test is not the litmus test to be applied while discarding the caste claim. This is precisely what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case. The pre-constitutional documents of the paternal ancestors of the Petitioner have the highest probative value. 11. In such view of the matter, we find substance in the Manisha 5/7 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is fit case for remand for reconsideration of the Petitioner’s claim for grant of Validity Certificate on the basis of well settled principles governing the consideration of such caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the following Order: ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division is quashed and set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded to the Respondent No.2- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division to examine the same afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations by the law laid down in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra). (iii) The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee on 14th October, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. Manisha 6/7 14-WP-10434-2010 .doc (iv) The Scrutiny Committee shall make an endeavour to decide the caste claim expeditiously within a period of four months from 14th October, 2026. (v) If the Petitioner wants to rely upon additional documents, the Petitioner is at liberty to rely upon such documents. (vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 11. In view of above, Writ Petition No. 10434 of 2010 stands disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Manisha 7/7