1 10-wp-10095-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2013 Govind Bhika Chavan ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department and Others ...Respondents ----------------- Mr. R. K. Mendadkar (through VC) a/w. Ms. Priyanka Shaw, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, for the Respondent / State. Mr. Dipak T. Shigam, Law Officer, CVC Thane, is present. ----------------- CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking setting aside of the impugned Judgement and Order dated 24th May 2013 passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee with further direction to Respondent Mamta Kale 1/9 MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date: 2026.10.01 11:25:20 +0530 2 10-wp-10095-2013.doc No.2 Scrutiny Committee to issue a certificate of validity in respect of tribe certificate dated 18th February 2008 issued by the Competent Authority. 3. The Petitioner was granted tribe certificate as belonging to Mahadev Koli tribe on 18th February 2008. Mahadev Koli is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. 4. The Petitioner joined services of Respondent No.3 on the post of Constable, under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe on 10th September 1994. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Naik in the year 2006. 5. Respondent No.3 forwarded the tribe certificate of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Petitioner had also submitted various documents in support of his tribe claim along with his application for verification. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee handed over the case of the Petitioner to the Vigilance Cell attached to Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. The Police Inspector of the Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of the Petitioner and submitted its Report to the Scrutiny Committee. The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee thereafter furnished a copy of the Enquiry Report to the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to file his explanation to the Enquiry Report. 6. The Petitioner’s explanation was accordingly filed on 23rd May 2012 and the Petitioner was called for hearing by Respondent No.2 on 26th Mamta Kale 2/9 3 10-wp-10095-2013.doc February 2013. 7. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, after hearing the Petitioner, had passed the impugned Judgement and Order. 8. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned Judgement and Order, and the likelihood that Respondent No.3 may initiate proceedings against the Petitioner, including termination of the Petitioner’s services on the basis of the impugned Judgement and Order invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner belonging to the Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe, has filed the present Petition. 9. Mr. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that, in spite of making a reference to the Judgement of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.3187 of 1994 Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, in paragraph 2 (XXIII) of the impugned Judgement and Order, Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has disregarded the same. By the said Judgement of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, Tribe Validity Certificate was granted in favour of the cousin uncle of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No.2 Committee failed to appreciate this fact. 10. Mr. Mendadkar has expressly referred to the findings of the impugned Judgement and Order at page 21 of the Petition wherein the cousin uncle of the present Petitioner has been described as applicant’s cousin niece and reference is made to Madhuri Patil’s case in the context of Mamta Kale 3/9 4 10-wp-10095-2013.doc the said Judgement and Order having been passed when the Vigilance Cell was not in existence. Further, the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has observed that the Judgement of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) had been passed long back in the year 1994, and the issue regarding the ratio of the earlier decision has been discussed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1256 of 2003 in Pradeep Ramchandra Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. Reliance has been placed on paragraph 7 of the said decision. 11. Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the said Judgement dated 10th October 1994 passed by this Court (Aurangabad Bench), which had set aside the impugned Order of Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and held that the Petitioner’s cousin uncle belonged to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, has not been challenged before the Supreme Court. He submitted that the said Judgement is accordingly final. He further submitted that the fact, that the present Petitioner’s cousin uncle belonged to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, ought to have taken into consideration by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and not disregarded in the aforesaid manner. 12. Mr. Mendadkar has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Shailesh Baban Shewale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.8736 of 2012 dated 20th September 2016, wherein in an almost identical case where the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee had not considered the fact of real brother of the Petitioner having been granted Mamta Kale 4/9 5 10-wp-10095-2013.doc a tribe validity certificate, set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee. 13. Reliance had been placed on the decision of this Court in Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in Writ Petition No.7569 of 2008, Judgement dated 12th April 2013, which had held that the validity certificate issued in the matter is required to be taken into consideration. Reference was also been made to the Order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7995 of 2004 decided in the case of real brother of the Petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe Mahadev Koli and the fact that the decision has not been challenged by the Scrutiny Committee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has accordingly been held that the said Order would be binding on the Scrutiny Committee and it is not legally permissible to the Committee to take a view contrary to the binding decision of this Court. 14. Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that the decision of this Court in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra) would also apply to the present case. He accordingly submitted that impugned Judgement and Order of the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee would be required to be set aside. 15. The learned AGP, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Scrutiny Committee, has placed reliance upon the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee dated 28th November 2014. She supported the Order passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has relied upon the Vigilance Cell Mamta Kale 5/9 6 10-wp-10095-2013.doc Report obtained in this case (which was not obtained in the case of the Petitioner’s relative who is having validity certificate) which shows the school record of the validity holder’s father as Koli. She also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case. She accordingly submitted that Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has referred to the fact that the decision of this Court in Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan (Supra) has been passed when Vigilance Cell was not in existence. 16. The learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Scrutiny Committee has accordingly submitted that the validity certificate being issued to the Petitioner’s cousin uncle has been correctly disregarded by the Scrutiny Committee based on the finding that the said Judgement had been passed long back in the year 1994. She submitted that the issue of validity certificates to relatives cannot be considered as conclusive proof while deciding the tribe claim of the Petitioner. She accordingly sought for dismissal of the Petition. 17. Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the present case is similar to the case which arose before this Court in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra), and is required to be considered in light of this decision. In that case too, the validity certificate of the applicant’s brother had been disregarded by the Scrutiny Committee by placing reliance upon Pradeep Ramchandra Patil (Supra) as well as the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case as has been done by Respondent Mamta Kale 6/9 7 10-wp-10095-2013.doc No.2 Scrutiny Committee in the present case. 18. This Court, in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra), has relied upon the Judgement of this Court in Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh (Supra), wherein this Court had set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee and the said decision was not challenged in any proceedings before the Supreme Court. It was held that when the siblings of the Petitioner viz., the paternal blood relatives, have been issued a Tribe Validity Certificate, it is impermissible for the Scrutiny Committee to take a view contrary to the binding decision of this Court. Here, in the present case, in view of this Court, in Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) in Writ Petition No.3187 of 1994, (Petition filed by the cousin uncle of the present Petitioner) having set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee and held the present Petitioner’s cousin uncle to be belonging to the Mahadev Koli Schedule Tribe, and which decision has not been challenged by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee could not have taken a contrary view to the binding decision of this Court. 19. The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has erroneously placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Pradeep Ramchandra Patil (Supra) as it has been held in Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh (Supra), that the validity certificate granted to blood relatives of the Petitioner cannot be Mamta Kale 7/9 8 10-wp-10095-2013.doc disregarded and the Committee would be bound by the said validity certificate. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, by taking a decision to invalidate the tribe certificate of the present Petitioner by disregarding the Order of this Court in Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan (Supra) on the ground that the said decision had been delivered when the Vigilance Cell was not in existence, is contrary to the decision of this Court in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra). We adopt the view taken by this Court in the said decision. 20. Accordingly, we find no merit in the submission on behalf of the learned AGP for the Respondent State placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (Supra) and Pradeep Ramchandra Patil (Supra) which have been considered in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra) and we hold that, in view of the present Petitioner’s paternal blood relative, viz. cousin uncle’s tribe claim having been upheld by this Court, and which decision has not been challenged by the Scrutiny Committee in proceedings before the Supreme Court, the same is binding on the Scrutiny Committee. 21. Writ Petition No.10095 of 2013 is accordingly allowed in the following terms: a. The impugned Judgement and Order dated 24th May 2013 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. Mamta Kale 8/9 9 10-wp-10095-2013.doc b. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee shall issue certificate of validity in respect of tribe certificate of the Petitioner dated 18th February 2008 issued by Competent Authority of Jurisdiction within a period of three weeks from the date of uploading of this Order. c. The Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. d. Interim Application filed by the present Petitioner does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.] Mamta Kale 9/9