911-WP-3952-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3952 OF 2026 Amey Umesh Jadhav Through his Natural Guardian and Father, Umesh Vishnu Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Onkar Ghatage a/w Mr. Jitendra Arun More, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan a/w Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, Ms. Ankita Chindge for Respondent No.3 (State CET Cell). Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent- State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : AUGUST 18, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner impugns the decision of Respondent No. 2 Committee dated 13th August, 2026 invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner is studying in engineering course and has submitted the proposal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee along with an affidavit showing the genealogy of his family as well as documentary evidence since 1912 showing his caste status as “Thakar”. Jamadar SL 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:7709-DB 911-WP-3952-2026.doc 2. After conducting the vigilance enquiry, the vigilance cell report dated 15th April, 2026 was served upon the Petitioner, which found the documents to be genuine, showing the caste status as “Thakar” since 1912. 3. The Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by considering that the documents of the paternal relatives of the Petitioner reflected the caste as Hindu Maratha, Maratha and Maratha Thakur. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the validity certificate granted to his father's first cousin Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav. He submits that as the validity has been granted to his paternal uncle, as per the settled position in law, his claim could not have been invalidated. He would further point out that the Scrutiny Committee has dealt with the validity certificate of his uncle Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav; however, no steps have been taken for cancellation of the certificate and no show-cause notice has been issued. He submits that as the caste claim of his uncle has been validated and is in subsistence, the Scrutiny Committee could not have rejected the Petitioner's application. 5. Learned AGP would point out the findings of the Scrutiny Committee on the documents which reflected the caste of the Jamadar SL 2 of 4 911-WP-3952-2026.doc Petitioner's relatives as Hindu Maratha, Maratha and Maratha Thakur. He submits that the Scrutiny Committee also considered the validity certificate of the Petitioner's uncle Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav. Upon a query by this Court, on instructions, he would submit that as of date no show-cause notice has been issued to Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav. 6. Considering that the validity certificate has been issued to the Petitioner's paternal uncle and there is no dispute as far as the genealogy is concerned and no show-cause notice as of date has been issued to the Petitioner's uncle in respect of the validity certificate which was granted on 11th March, 2004, the certificate cannot be brushed aside. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to caste validity certificate. 7. Learned AGP has rightly pointed out the decision of this Court in the case of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, where the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the Committee is not prevented from proceeding in accordance with law against the relative whose certificate of validity is under question and in the event that the certificate is invalidated, all the consequences shall be suffered by the Petitioner as well. We are also inclined to adopt the same course. 8. In light of the above discussion, the Petition is allowed. 1 WP No.5611 of 2018 decided on 27th July, 2018 by the Bombay High Court. Jamadar SL 3 of 4 911-WP-3952-2026.doc 9. The impugned order dated 13th August, 2026 is quashed and set aside. 10. The validity certificate be issued to the Petitioner expeditiously and in any event within a period of one week. 11. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to act on the authenticated copy of this order and not to cancel the admission of the Petitioner. 12. It is clarified that this order does not prevent the Committee from proceeding against Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav in accordance with law and in the event, the claim of Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav is invalidated, the Petitioner will be bound to suffer the consequences as well. 13. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar SL 4 of 4