Bombay High Court
Akshata D/O Dnyaneshwar Dongare vs The Vice-Chairman/Member Secy., ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7859-DB
1 WP 4237 & 4240.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4237 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4240 OF 2022
[1] WRIT PETITION NO.4237 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Bondu Layout, Sai Nagar,
Amravati, District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1) The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati.
2) The District Maleria Officer,
Amravati.
3) The Joint Director of Health Services,
Maleria Fileria, Pune. .. Respondents
..........
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate with Ms. Himani Kavi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Pendke, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
..........
[2] WRIT PETITION NO.4240 OF 2022
Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation-Student,
R/o. Bondu Layout, Sai Nagar, Amravati,
District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
2 WP 4237 & 4240.22
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. .. Respondents
..........
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate with Ms. Himani Kavi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Pendke, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent-State.
..........
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28th JULY, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th AUGUST, 2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT [Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Both these petitions are taken together as there is a common
order passed by the Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
(for short, respondent-committee). Furthermore, petitioner
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare in Writ Petition No.4237/2022
is the father of the petitioner Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare
in Writ Petition No.4240/2022. The documents relied by both the
petitioners before the committee are also identical.
3. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the
impugned order dated 28.04.2022, by which the respondent-
committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners as 'Mana'
3 WP 4237 & 4240.22
Scheduled Tribe. It is the submission of the petitioners that both
belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe category and obtained the caste
certificates in that regard from the competent authority at the
relevant time.
4. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4237/2022 working as a
'Multipurpose Worker' in the Health Department and was appointed
from Scheduled Tribe category on 01.10.1992. His proposal was
forwarded to the scrutiny committee on 02.12.2017.
5. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4240/2022 pursuing her final
year B.Sc. course and her proposal was forwarded to the scrutiny
committee on 23.06.2016.
6. It is the submission of the petitioners that while forwarding
the proposal to the caste scrutiny committee, they have categorically
stated that there is no caste validity in their family. Petitioner namely,
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare is the first person who claimed
the caste 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
7. The petitioners have submitted the family tree along with
their caste claim to the caste scrutiny committee which is not
disputed in the matter. According to the family tree, in the family of
the petitioners, one Shri Fakiraya is the grandfather of Dnyaneshwar
4 WP 4237 & 4240.22
and great grandfather of Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare.
The said genealogical tree is reproduced as under :
8. The petitioners, to substantiate their caste claim, have
mainly relied upon the kotwal book entry in the name of
5 WP 4237 & 4240.22
grandfather/great grandfather namely, 'Fakiraya Mana' which is
recorded on 13.06.1932. As such, on the basis of this oldest entry,
the petitioners claimed that they belong to caste 'Mana' Scheduled
Tribe.
9. It is also submitted by the petitioners that after forwarding
their caste claim to the respondent-committee, first vigilance cell
report was prepared in the matter on 02.05.2019. According to the
said vigilance cell report, the entry of year 1932 in the name of
Fakiraya Mana was verified and found to be correct entry. It is
further stated by the petitioners that vigilance cell, during their
enquiry, prepared the family tree and same is found to be resembling
with the family tree prepared by the petitioners.
10. According to the petitioners, there is no dispute about the
oldest documents which they have relied upon and relation of
petitioners with grandfather/great grandfather namely 'Fakiraya'. It is
further pointed out by the petitioners that without any justified
reasons, the respondent-committee directed the vigilance cell to
conduct re-enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the vigilance cell
conducted re-enquiry into the matter and submitted its report on
24.02.2020.
6 WP 4237 & 4240.22
11. According to petitioners, in re-enquiry, vigilance cell
recorded in their report that entry in the name of Fakiraya of the year
1932 cannot be relied upon, because the same is found in another
case of one Ku. Janvhi Narayan Gharat. As such, on that count, the
old entry of 1932 was discarded by the vigilance cell.
12. The respondent-committee, who was expected to record any
reason on the oldest documents relied by petitioners, relied upon
subsequent entry in the family of the petitioners wherein caste of the
family members was recorded as 'Mani & Mani-Kunbi'. As such,
relying on the said entry, the claim of the petitioners came to be
rejected.
13. In the circumstances, the submission of the petitioners is
that the respondent-committee failed to consider the pre-
independence era document and also violated the Scheduled Tribe
(Regulation of Issuance of Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003 (for
short, Rules-2003) and on this count, stated that impugned order is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
14. The respondent-committee, in response to the notices issued
by the court, filed their affidavit and stated that the entries in the
family of the petitioners of years 1937, 1947, 1952, 1954 and 1965
found to be of 'Mani & Mani-Kunbi' and, therefore, committee has
7 WP 4237 & 4240.22
rightly rejected the caste claim of the petitioners. It is further
submitted by the respondent-committee that the petitioners in the
affinity test failed to prove anthropological and ethnological traits,
deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method
of burial of dead bodies etc. Hence, in view of failure in the affinity
test, the respondent-committee rightly recorded the reasons and
hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent-
committee.
15. We have heard the respective counsel, perused the entire
record and also considered the relevant case laws which were pointed
out by both the parties.
16. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand .vs. Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in
2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed in paras 18 and 19 as under :
18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph
that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be
considered not only on a thorough examination of the
documents submitted in support of the claim but also on
the affinity test, which would include the anthropological
and ethnological traits etc., of the applicant. However, it
is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute
rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a
caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following
broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing
with a caste claim:
8 WP 4237 & 4240.22
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater
reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents
because they furnish a higher degree of probative value
to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to
post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is
the first generation ever to attend school, the availability
of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that
ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In
fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to
attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the
applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event
of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity
has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which
an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the
ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a
cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago,
when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural
development happening around them, the affinity test
could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the
migrations, modernisation and contact with other
communities, these communities tend to develop and
adopt new traits which may not essentially match with
the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity
test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing
the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part
of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit
extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on
the ground that his present traits do not match his tribes'
peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies,
method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity
test may be used to corroborate the documentary
evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a
claim.
19. Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste
claim is upon the applicant. He has to produce all the
requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of
verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinise
the documents and material produced by the applicant.
In case, the material produced by the applicant does not
prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence
on its own to prove or disprove his claim.
9 WP 4237 & 4240.22
17. It is further necessary to refer the judgment in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil and another .vs. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 ,
wherein as per the guideline no.5, it is stated as under :
Para 13 (5) - Each Directorate should constitute a
vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy
Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such
number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place
of residence and original place from which the
candidate hails and usually resides or in case of
migration to the town or city, the place from which he
originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should
personally verify and collect all the facts of the social
status claimed by the candidate or the parent or
guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine
the school records, birth registration, if any. He should
also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in
relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who
have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and
then submit a report to the Directorate together with all
particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular,
of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method
of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or
tribal communities concerned etc.
18. The petitioners then relied upon other judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti .vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326, and relied upon paras 20, 21
and 25 as under :
20. 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 the
10 WP 4237 & 4240.22
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1. It lays down that the
documents of the preConstitution 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 authentic and genuine documents of the
preConstitution 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.
21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502
of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case2), 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 the 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.
25. Now, we come to the controversy regarding the
affinity test. In clause (5) of Paragraph 13 of the decision
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, it is held that in the
case of Scheduled Tribes, the Vigilance Cell will submit a
report as regards peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead
11 WP 4237 & 4240.22
bodies etc. in respect of the particular caste or tribe.
Such particulars ascertained by the Vigilance Cell in
respect of a particular Scheduled Tribe are very relevant
for the conduct of the affinity test. The Vigilance Cell,
while conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge
of the applicant about deities of the community,
customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies
etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe. By its
very nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive.
If the applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along
with his family for decades or if his family has stayed in
such urban areas for decades, the applicant may not
have knowledge of the aforesaid facts. It is true that the
Vigilance Cell can also question the parents of the
applicant. But in a given case, even the parents may be
unaware for the reason that for several years they have
been staying in bigger urban areas. On the other hand, a
person may not belong to the particular tribe, but he
may have a good knowledge about the aforesaid aspects.
Therefore, Shri Shekhar Naphade, the learned senior
counsel, is right when he submitted that the affinity test
cannot be applied as a litmus test. We may again note
here that question of conduct of the affinity test arises
only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not
satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.
19. From the above said judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, it is clear that the scrutiny committee, while dealing with
documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-
independence documents which is having higher degree of probative
value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-
Independence documents. It is further held that the caste scrutiny
committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and,
therefore, it can only scrutinize the documents and material produced
by the applicant. It is held that in case the material produced by the
12 WP 4237 & 4240.22
applicant does not prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather
evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted 12 (2) of the Rules,
2003 and held that as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny Committee
cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance Cell for
conducting an enquiry, particularly when sub-rule (2) of Rule
12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
with the documents produced by the applicant, in that case only to
refer the documents to Vigilance Cell. In respect of affinity test, it is
held that the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim
and is not an essential part in process of determination of correctness
of a caste or tribe claim in every case.
21. In the light of above said legal position, we have considered
the documents and procedure which has been adopted by the
respondent-committee in the matter. We have also perused the
document dated 13.06.1932 in the name of grandfather/great
grandfather namely, Fakiraya. According to us, there is no ambiguity
and it is clearly mentioned the caste as 'Mana'. As such, discarding
this important document only because Vigilance Cell in it's report
stated that same is found in one Ku. Janvi Gharat case, without
giving any details as to how same is relevant in the matter, we find
13 WP 4237 & 4240.22
grave error committed by respondent-committee in the matter while
deciding the caste claim of petitioners.
22. It is further clear from the perusal of the impugned order
that the vigilance cell on 21.05.2019 submitted positive report,
however, same was not relied upon by the committee and directed to
consider re-enquiry into the matter. But the perusal of entire record
nowhere demonstrate that the reasons are recorded while directing
re-enquiry into the matter. Hence, prima facie, it is clear that the
respondent-committee violated Rule 12 (2) of the Rules-2003.
23. It is pertinent to note that the whole case of the petitioners
was based upon the oldest entry in the name of Fakiraya, who is
grandfather/great grandfather of the petitioner, but the perusal of
impugned order passed by the respondent-committee nowhere shows
any consideration about the said entry nor recorded any reason as to
why the said entry has been discarded while considering the case of
the petitioner. Hence, according to us, there is manifest error
committed by the respondent-committee while deciding the caste
claim of the petitioner.
24. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners while submitting
their caste claim candidly stated that there is no one in the family of
the petitioners possessing the caste validity certificate and, therefore,
14 WP 4237 & 4240.22
considering the old documents, their caste claim should be
considered. In the present case, the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.4237/2022 is the first person who got employment in the year
1992, claimed the caste validity and undergone affinity test.
Accordingly, we have gone through the statement of Dnyaneshwar
recorded by the vigilance cell officer during the course of enquiry.
The bare perusal of the said statement dated 11.04.2018 clearly
shows that it was in question/answer form conducted by the Police
Inspector. It is also seen that the petitioner has answered every
question and submitted all the details, customs and traditions
followed by the petitioner and their family. It is not happened, while
answering the queries, he stated that he is not aware about the traits
and culture of caste 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. As such, there was no
reason to disbelieve the affinity test conducted by vigilance cell,
particularly petitioner has answered all the queries put-forth by the
officer.
25. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that while considering
the customs and tradition followed by any particular community, it
must be established on the record that the person who has conducted
enquiry was having experience and done research in the matter of
said tribe and on basis of such research, he has put his remark on the
report so as to reach to the conclusion that the candidate failed to
15 WP 4237 & 4240.22
establish the customs and tradition in the matter. But we do not find
any such remark of the vigilance officer in his report so as to
conclude that he was not satisfied that petitioners failed in the
affinity test.
26. In the present matter, we found that the entire exercise
done by the respondent-committee is contrary to the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Firstly, there is no consideration to
pre-independence era document that is of dated 13.06.1932 in the
name of grandfather/great grandfather of petitioners. Secondly,
once vigilance cell admitted the validity of document in its first
vigilance report, there was no reason recorded as to why the matter
was again referred to vigilance cell. Thirdly, on affinity, the enquiry
was made by the officer by asking question in question-answer form,
same were replied by petitioners. As such, in absence of any remark
of concerned officer that petitioners failed to prove the custom,
rituals, the committee ought to have consider the same as a
corroborative evidence rather than accepting it as a litmus test.
As such, law laid down regarding consideration of affinity test is not
at all considered in the matter.
27. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order
passed by the respondent-caste scrutiny committee is contrary to the
16 WP 4237 & 4240.22
settled principles of law and hence deserves to be quashed and set
aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the
Respondent-The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioners have proved
that they belonging to 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', which is Entry No.18
of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.
(iv) The Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
is hereby directed to issue the Caste Validity Certificate to the
petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
(v) It is further made clear that petitioners are entitled for
all consequential benefits flowing from the caste validity certificates
in their respective service career.
28. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/08/2025 11:11:22
