JUDGMENT : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Scrutiny Committee bearing Case No. 11/510/Edu/082024/110326 dated 14.08.2025, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe category and cancelling the caste certificate dated 26.12.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Umarkhed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student in respondent No.3 College and belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr.No.19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed issued a caste certificate in his favour on 26.12.2017. The petitioner submitted his tribe claim to respondent No.1 Committee for verification and on 14.08.2025, the respondent No.1 Committee passed the impugned order invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submits that he has relied upon the following pre-constitutional documents in support of his tribe claim: 5. The petitioner submits that the Police Vigilance Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the respondent Committee which was forwarded to the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 23.07.2025. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 04.08.2025 and submitted a detailed reply explaining that the Koshti entries are of persons not related to him or his family. The Vigilance Officer also obtained documents showing caste as ‘Marathi’ of persons not related to the petitioner.The said detailed reply has not been considered by the Committee. 6. The petitioner specifically contends that the Birth Extract of Champat Devji Parate dated 16.06.1925 is a crucial pre-constitutional document clearly recording the caste as ‘Halbi’ and deserves high probative value. There is no finding of fraud or interpolation and there are no adverse remarks on these documents. The Committee has illegally discarded these documents on the ground of ‘relation not established’ despite the clear genealogical link established through the family tree. 7. The petitioner further submits that the Committee has rejected the caste claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish the affinity test. It is contended that when documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, it is not permissible for the Committee to reject the claim solely on the basis of affinity test. 8. It is contended that when documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, it is not permissible for the Committee to reject the claim solely on the basis of affinity test. 8. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, 2011 (6) Mh. L.J. 919, Vilas Dinkar Bhat v. State of Maharashtra (decided on 03.11.2020), Madhuri Patil, Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samitee v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (2) Mh. L.J. 785 and Priya Pramod Gajabe v. State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal No. 7117/2019. 9. For the sake of brevity, the family tree is reproduced below : 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, at Serial No. 19 the entry reads ‘Halba, Halbi’ thereby indicating that ‘Halba’ and ‘Halbi’ are distinct tribes. It is submitted that the petitioner’s cousin grandfather belonged to ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe, whereas the petitioner is claiming ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. 11. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents submits that the following adverse entries were procured in the vigilance enquiry : 12. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents further submits that in respect of the documents dated 16.06.1925 and 15.01.1948, the concerned authorities have opined that the records are in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, their genuineness cannot be verified. 13. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents also points out that the sale deed dated 04.05.2001 executed by Champat Deu Parate (real great grandfather of the petitioner) specifically records that the ‘seller is not belonging to Tribal Community’. The 7/12 extracts of paternal side lands also do not contain any endorsement under Sections 36 or 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which are provisions applicable to tribal lands. 14. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s father admitted before the Committee that no one in the petitioner’s family has obtained a caste validity certificate of ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that the oldest documents show the caste as ‘Haalbi’ whereas the petitioner is claiming ‘Halbi’ and, applying the principle of ‘read as it is’ laid down in Milind Katware, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of entries showing ‘Haalbi’. 15. It is further submitted that the oldest documents show the caste as ‘Haalbi’ whereas the petitioner is claiming ‘Halbi’ and, applying the principle of ‘read as it is’ laid down in Milind Katware, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of entries showing ‘Haalbi’. 15. Lastly, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents therefore, submits that the petitioner has failed to prove socio-cultural affinity with ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe and has also suppressed material facts adverse to his claim. It is contended that the invalidation order dated 14.08.2025 is based on a proper appreciation of the material on record, correctly applies the affinity test and, hence, does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 16. We have appreciated the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties as and have also gone through the documents placed on record. As the petitioner herein is claiming to be ‘Halbi’, Scheduled Tribe, the oldest document showing ‘Halbi’ and submitted by the petitioner is school record of his great grandfather i.e. Champat Deu Parate which is dated 16.6.1925. The reason for discarding the said document is that it is in a dilapidated/torn condition as opined by the Head-Master and, therefore, in the opinion of the Committee the said document is suspicious. The next oldest document thereafter is birth extract register of one Shankar Champat Halbi dated 15.1.1948. Even the said document is discarded/rejected for the same reason. Furthermore, the document dated 11.10.1941 which is of a female daughter born to Champat showing the caste ‘Halbi’ is discarded on the reason that the caste shown is ‘Haalbi’ and not ‘Halbi’ as claimed by the petitioner. The same reason is given for discarding birth extract register of the second daughter of Champat dated23.3.1950. 17. In our view, the reasons for discarding the said document that they being torn and dilapidated as opined by the concerned authority, is not only fallacious but doesn’t appeal to logic since the documents more than 90 years old are bound to be in a dilapidated or fragile condition. Only because the concerned Head-Master/custodian of the document has opined that the said documents are in such condition cannot be a reason to infer as has been done by the Scrutiny Committee. The said exercise doesn’t appeal to conscious. 18. Only because the concerned Head-Master/custodian of the document has opined that the said documents are in such condition cannot be a reason to infer as has been done by the Scrutiny Committee. The said exercise doesn’t appeal to conscious. 18. Furthermore, as far as entry ‘Haalbi’ and not ‘Halbi’ is concerned, admittedly there is no such caste ‘Haalbi’ and it could have been reasonably inferred by the Scrutiny Committee that the said word denotes ‘Halbi’. It seems that the Scrutiny Committee is finding novel ways by going into unnecessary details only to see to it that the claim of the persons approaching it are rejected on fallacious reasons. 19. As can be seen from the birth extract register of a male child born to said Champatrao (great grandfather of the petitioner), caste ‘Halbi’ is mentioned and the document dates back to 3.3.1947. Thus, there was an overwhelming evidence on record to reach to a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. The observation of the Scrutiny Committee that the caste ‘Halbi’ ‘Halba’, ‘Haalba’ and ‘Haalbi’ are contrary entries is not only defying to logic but does not take into consideration the phonetic similarity and goes on to unnecessarily technical details of the matter. Admittedly, there are no contra entries. The oldest document dated 16.6.2025 as stated supra and the reason for discarding the same is totally erroneous rendering the order perverse. The family tree filed by the applicant clearly established the relationship between the persons mentioned in the said oldest document and the petitioner. It was, therefore, obligatory on the Scrutiny Committee to appreciate these findings in the said perspective. 20. As far as invalidation of caste claim of Mr. Bapurao Champat Parate, the petitioner submits that the said person has not accepted the order and a Writ Petition is pending before this Court. Thus, the said reasoning given by the Scrutiny Committee is also without any basis. Even assuming the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee to be proper that there are contra entries in pre- independence and post independence period, in view of the discussion made by us supra and the reasons for discarding the said document as mentioned above clearly renders, the order is infirm on the touchstone of law. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order of the Scrutiny Committee impugned in the petition is unsustainable. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order of the Scrutiny Committee impugned in the petition is unsustainable. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER: (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 14.8.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 - Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in Case No.11/510/Edu/082024/110326 is quashed and set aside. (iii) It is declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. (iv) Te respondent No.1 - Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is directed to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from today. (v) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (vi) The petition is disposed of.