Bombay High Court
Himanshu Dilip Bhamare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 25 April, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:12493-DB
WP9404-19ThakurST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9404 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4501 OF 2025
Himanshu s/o Dilip Bhamare ... Petitioner
Age 28 years, Occu: Service
R/o 38, Indraprastha Colony,
Near Stadium, Gondur Road,
Deopur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Department of Tribal Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... Respondents
Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Dhule
4. Anandvan Primary Vidyalaya,
Songir, Tq. & Dist. Dhule
Through its Headmaster
Mr. Digambar Shinde h/for Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the
petitioner,
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATED : 25.04.2025
Page 1 of 6
WP9404-19ThakurST
JUDGMENT (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the
sides, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated
08.07.2019, passed by Respondent No. 2 Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe of the
Petitioner.
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels
appearing for the respective parties and perused the petition paper book. The
learned AGP strongly opposed this petition.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, he belongs to "Thakur",
Schedule Tribes. On 21.01.2012, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
with Respondent No. 4 School against the seat reserved for Schedule Tribe
category. Respondent no. 3 Education Officer has granted approval to his
appointment on 23.04.2012 and since then he is in service. However, when
he was studying in the College, his caste claim was referred to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, on 03.09.2002 alongwith documentary
WP9404-19ThakurST
evidence of pre-constitutional period and certificate of Caste Validities which
were issued in favour of his two cousin uncles. Subsequently, his caste claim
was referred to the Respondent no. 2 newly constituted Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar. On 3.11.2016 he was served with Vigilance Report,
to which he replied on 02.12.2016. However, Respondent no. 2 without any
reason again decided to conduct Vigilance Cell enquiry. Accordingly, on
15.06.2019, the Vigilance report was submitted. The Petitioner was then
served with show cause notice dated 28.06.2019 alongwith second vigilance
cell report, calling upon him to submit his explanation, as genealogical tree
did not match. So also, though the petitioner relied on caste validity granted
to his cousin Ms. Mayuri Manoj Bhamre but during vigilance enquiry it was
revealed that the names of persons described in genealogy did not match.
The entry in School Leaving Certificate issued by Z.P. School Virdel Tq.
Shindkheda in respect of Shri Durgadas Barka Bhamre reflects scratching by
making round over 'Brahma-Bhatt' in the caste column. Similarly, in school
admission register dated 08.06.1942 pertaining to his cousin uncle Shri
Yashwant Barka Bhamre entry in the caste column is shown as 'Brahma-
Bhatt'. Further, in caste columns of the petitioner's relatives there are
different entries i.e. Bhat, Hindu Brahma-Bhatt, Thakur, Hindu Thakur,
Hindu Bhatt Therefore, as per vigilance report, his caste claim does not
sustain. On 01.07.2019, the Petitioner replied to the show cause notice
WP9404-19ThakurST
contending that, earlier his paternal blood relatives were granted caste
validity certificates and the validities are still in existence.
5. As per genealogical tree, Late Lakadu was having three Children
namely Handu, Ganpat and Harsingh. Handu had one son Jamsingh. Ganpat
had three sons namely Naval, Dilip and Sudhakar. Harsingh had one son
Ranjit. Shri Jamsingh had two sons namely Amit and Sumeet. Shri Naval had
two sons namely Sunil and Sachin. The present petitioner is son of Dilip
Ganpat Bhamare. On going through the impugned order, we find that the
Respondent Scrutiny Committee has granted validity certificate to Shri
Jamsingh Handusing Bhamare, the second degree paternal uncle of the
petitioner and paternal blood relative of the petitioner.
6. Needless to say that, on 6 September 2023, a coordinate bench of this
Court at principal seat passed an order in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2021
(Kaustubh Sudhakar Bhamare and another-Vs- State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
and observed in para 4 as under:
"4. On going through the impugned order, we find that
Scrutiny Committee has not considered the core issue involved in
the petition which pertains to the basis of validity certificate
granted to Jamsingh Handusing Bhamare, paternal uncle of the
Petitioners. The basis of grant of validity certificate to Jamsingh
Handusing Bhamare was the certificate of validity granted to
Amol Dilipsing Bhamare, paternal cousin of the petitioners and
WP9404-19ThakurST
Amol Dilipsing Bhamare was ranted validity certificate on the
basis of the directions given by this Court, in Writ Petition No.
3117 /1996 decided on 18/06/1996. We also find that Scrutiny
Committee has not considered in any manner pre-constitution
entries namely, entry dated 24/04/1926 standing in relation to
Handu Lakdu Thakur, entry dated 16-07-1937 standing in
relation to Tahnsing Lakde Bhamare and entry dated 13-06-
1941 standing in relation to Harsingh Lakde Thakur. Such non
consideration of the core issue and documents relating to the
claim of the petitioners has resulted in rendering the impugned
order as bad in law deserving it being quashed and set aside by
this Court". [Emphasis supplied]
7. Further, On 20th September, 2024, the coordinate bench of this court
passed an order in Writ Petition No. 3656 of 2021 Sudhakar Ganpat
Bhamare-Vs- State of Maharashtra & ors., and granted validity to paternal
cousin of the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid
down in cases of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.; AIR 2023 S.C. 1657 , Shweta Balaji Isankar V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Bom. 10341,Apoorva Vinay Nichale-
Vs- Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and Ors., [2010
(6) Mh. L. J. 401, wherein it has been concluded that, when the biological
father, biological siblings, biological uncle etc., are granted validity
certificates, a candidate so related to them, cannot be deprived of a validity
certificate, the present petitioner is entitled to have a certificate of validity.
WP9404-19ThakurST
8. In view of above discussion, present petition deserves to be allowed
and impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Respondent no. 2
needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.07.2019
passed by the Respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
Respondent/Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity
certificate to the petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur' Schedule Tribe in
the prescribed format. However, we clarify that, in the event, any
time in future, the validity certificates issued Kaustubh, Chetashri,
Jamsing Handusing or Ranjit Harsing are questioned and suffer
adverse orders, the same consequences would be applicable to the
petitioner and he would be held liable for the same action.
(ii) Rule made absolute accordingly.
(iii) Pending Civil Application also stands disposed off.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
JPChavan
