Bombay High Court
Javedkha S/O Musakha Pathan vs The S. T. Caste Certi. Scrutiny ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7990-DB
1 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7419 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Javedkha s/o Musakha Pathan
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation : Service as Kotwal,
R/o. Dodra, Post Isrul, Tah. Deulgaon
Raja, District - Buldhana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chaprasipura,
Amravati, District - Amravati,
Through its Research Officer /
Member Secretary.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Sindkhed Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja,
District - Buldhana.
3. The Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja,
Tah. Deulgaon Raja,
District - Buldhana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. D. V. Sapkal, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 07/08/2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13/08/2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the
order dated 31/10/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 -
Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to
"Bhil" Tribe, which is recognized as "Scheduled Tribe" is
invalidated.
3. In short, the facts of the petition, can be stated as
under:-
The petitioner claims to be of "Muslim" religion and
belongs to Caste "Bhil", which is recognized as "Scheduled Tribe"
at Sr.No.8. The petitioner accordingly by representing himself of
Scheduled Tribe on 15/05/2015 came to be appointed against the
post of Kotwal reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. After his
appointment on 01/09/2022, his caste claim was forwarded to the
respondent No.1 - Committee.
4. The petitioner in support of his caste claim tendered
pre-independence era documents of the years 1934, 1938 and
1955 of his relatives from paternal side to demonstrate that he
belongs to caste "Bhil".
5. The respondent No.1 - Committee after receipt of
proposal of petitioner, forwarded the said documents for
3 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
verification to the Vigilance Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the
Vigilance Cell after conducting enquiry submitted its report on
01/08/2024 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
6. Vigilance Cell in it's report stated that the document
dated 21/04/1938 relied upon by the petitioner of his Great
Grand-father namely; Husainkha Motikha was found to be
recorded as "Musalman" in one ink and the word "Bhil" is written
in another ink. Hence, said document cannot be relied upon. The
document of the year 1934 of Husainkha Motikha showing the
entries in respect of birth of one son Sarfarazkhan of year 1955
and the birth of one son Musakhan to Sarfarazkhan Husaikha
found to be in a dilapidated condition as per the communication
received from Tahsil Office, Buldhana. As such, record was not
made available for verification. Hence, they cannot comment on
the entries of year 1934 and 1955.
7. The respondent No.1 - Committee after receipt of
report of Vigilance Cell on 07/08/2024 issued notice to the
petitioner and asked to tender explanation on the report of
Vigilance Cell.
8. The petitioner on 26/08/2024 tendered his explanation
to the respondent No.1 - Committee and stated that along with his
4 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
application, he has already submitted copies of Kotwal Book Entry,
which is of 1934 of his great-great-grand-father namely;
Husainkha Motikha and of year 1955 of Sarfarazkhan Husainkhan.
Hence, said documents being already produced on record, the
remark of the Vigilance Cell is incorrect. Hence, the report in that
regard should not be relied upon by Respondent No.1 -
Committee.
9. In respect of document dated 21/04/1938 of using
different ink to record the caste "Bhil", it is stated that according
to the petitioner, he found no difference of the ink in the said
document and if the committee has any doubt about interpolation,
the matter can be referred to the expert and by relying upon the
opinion of expert, committee can take appropriate decision in the
matter.
10. In the background of abovesaid factual position, the
respondent No.1 - Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim
of the petitioner and by impugned order dated 31/10/2024,
invalidated the caste claim of petitioner. The same is under
challenge by present petition.
11. The respondent No.1 - Committee in response to the
notices issued by this Court, appeared in the matter and strongly
5 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
objected the petition. It is the submission of respondent No.1 that
as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vrs. Milind Katware and others,
reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1, the Presidential Order should be
read as it is. Nobody has right to insert a single comma or to
change a single word in it. Hence, considering the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the entries which are
recorded in the name of blood relatives of the petitioner as
"Musalman" were considered as it is. It is further stated that the
entries of pre-independence era documents relied upon by the
petitioner found to be in torn condition and due to the said reason,
the Committee was not in a position to consider those documents
while deciding the Tribe claim. In respect of Caste Validity
Certificate relied by the petitioner in the name of Javeed Khan
Aalam Khan Tadavi, it is stated that the Vigilance Cell during the
course of their enquiry could not find his name in the genealogical
tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell. Hence, the Caste Validity
Certificate of cousin brother of petitioner was not relied by the
Committee while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition being devoid of merit,
same is liable to be dismissed.
6 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
12. In the present petition, we have perused the original
record produced by the respondent No.1 - Committee. Perusal of
the said record shows that the petitioner has produced the
certified copies of Kotwal Book showing the entry in the name of
great-grand-father Sarfarazkha Husainkha of the year 1955 and
entry of the year 1934 in the name of Husainkha Motikha. The
said certified copy seems to have been obtained from Tahsil Office,
Buldhana in the year 2017. As such, it is surprising how the
Vigilance Cell recorded the finding that the concerned officer has
denied them to provide same documents for verification vide
letter dated 17/08/2023 by stating that documents being torn and
in a dilapidated condition. Furthermore, it is expected from
learned committee members to record finding as to why the
certified copies supplied by petitioner in such circumstances
cannot be relied upon. But neither any findings are recorded nor
exercised their powers to make enquiries as to how the same
authority at one hand issued certified copies to petitioner and
refused the access of record to Vigilance Officer. As such, there is
total non-application of mind while considering the pre-
independence era documents.
13. In respect of old entry in the name of Husainkha
Motikha dated 21/04/1938, the petitioner in his reply after receipt
7 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
of Vigilance Cell Report specifically stated that if the Committee is
of the opinion that there is interpolation as the caste "Bhil" as it is
alleged to be found in different ink, the matter should be referred
to the Handwriting Expert and get opinion from the said person.
But, it seems that though specific explanation was tendered by
petitioner, no reasons are recorded while dealing with document
dated 21/04/1938. What we find that Respondent No.1 -
Committee instead of applying it's mind simply accepted the
reasons recorded by the Vigilance Cell. Hence, it can be said that
there is no independent application of mind while considering the
old entries produced by the petitioner in the matter.
14. In the present petition from the record, it is seen that
the Vigilance Cell has prepared genealogical tree of the family of
the petitioner. According to the said tree, it is admitted fact that
Husainkha is the great-grant-father, Sarfarazkhan is the grant-
father and Musakhan is the father of petitioner namely; Javedkha
s/o Musakha Pathan. Hence, there is no dispute in respect of
family tree, which is submitted by the petitioner along with his
application and the family tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell.
Therefore, pre-independence era documents of great-grand-father,
grand-father and father are the important documents and the
verification of the same was required to be done by the respondent
8 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
No.1 - Committee before deciding the caste claim by availing all
the powers which are given to them under the Statute. However, it
seems that the respondent No.1 - Committee failed to exercise its
powers to verify the documents produced by the petitioner in right
perspective.
15. The petitioner in support of his submission has relied
upon by the Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition
No.788/2021, wherein this Court in Para Nos. 14 and 16 observed
as under :-
"14. Now, moving to the entry of 1933, it is stated that the
police vigilance cell could not find a copy of application on the
record of the school, seeking 'Transfer Certificate'. The other
reason for discarding the said entry was that the complete entry
was not found, because the record is very old and a small corner
part of the page having entry 'Hedau' relating to grand father of
the petitioner, has been pulled apart or torn.
16. In the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claim, The Hon'ble Apex Court has
specifically ruled that greater reliance may be placed on pre-
independence documents because they furnish high degree of
probative value. It is further observed that the affinity test is
merely to be used to collaborate documentary evidence and it is
not to be used as sole criteria for rejection of claim."
According to this Judgment, if the Committee discarded
the pre-independence era documents on the count that record is
very old and in a dilapidated condition and therefore could not
verify the same, cannot be accepted as a valid reason. Accordingly,
on the ground that the Committee failed to assess the
9 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
documentary evidence by omitting to consider the important piece
of evidence, remanded back the matter for fresh consideration.
16. This Court further in Writ Petition No.8381/2023
(Ku.Gangubai D/o Prabhakar Naitam Vrs. District Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee and others) decided on 23/09/2024 observed
in Para No.11 as under :-
"11. The document pertaining to year 01/07/1954,
in respect of applicant's father's birth certificate clearly goes to
show that on 01/07/1954, a son was born to Nilu Tirumal by
name Prabhakar. This document is the certified copy obtained by
the applicant from the original. However, this document is
discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Community on the ground that
when letter sent to Block Development Officer for bringing the
original record, the block Development Officer informed through
letter that record of Nilu Tiramal is in dilapidated condition,
therefore, cannot be produced before the Committee. If earlier
vigilance report dated 17/01/2004 is perused, it is clearly
supporting the applicant. It appears that entries of birth
certificate of father of the petitioner were also duly verified by the
Vigilance Cell and were reported as true and correct."
Accordingly, it is made clear that the certified copies
obtained by the applicant from the original and furnished before
the Committee, same needs to be considered while deciding the
caste claim of the petitioner. However, in this case though the
petitioner has furnished the certified copies of the pre-
independence era documents obtained from the Tahsil Office,
Buldhana, the same are not relied upon by the committee.
17. In respect of allegation of interpolation, petitioner has
relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
10 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
in the case of Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
reported in (2009) 10 SCC 268, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Para No.14 observed as under :-
"14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on which
basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the
word "lu" was interpolated in the register of the school more
particularly when it was not so opined by the Police Inspector
who had conducted the enquiry. Whether interpolation by
addition has taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert
or by comparison of admitted letters of a person with this
disputed one. It is an admitted position that the Scrutiny
Committee had never attempted to get an expert's opinion nor
itself had compared the disputed letters with admitted one of
the appellant."
As such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while
considering the genuineness of caste certificate where it is alleged
of interpolation of documents, the expert opinion can always be
obtained to clarify the said doubt. Admittedly in the present
matter, petitioner while tendering his reply on the Vigilance Cell
Report specifically stated that if the Committee is of the opinion
that there is different ink used to record the caste as "Bhil", the
matter can be referred to the expert opinion. However, said
recourse was not followed by the Committee and only on the basis
of Vigilance Cell Report, discarded the pre-independence era
document dated 21/04/1938.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear
that the respondent No.1 - Committee failed to exercise its powers
11 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
in proper perspective and wrongly discarded pre-independence
documents which are relied upon by the petitioner and having
high degree of probative value.
19. Hence, for the aforesaid factual as well as legal
position, we are of the considered opinion that the pre-
independence era document needs reconsideration at the hands of
respondent No.1 - Committee and therefore, the matter is
required to be remanded back to the respondent No.1 -
Committee for fresh consideration. Hence, we pass the following
order :-
ORDER
i] The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii] The order dated 31/10/2024 passed by the
respondent No.1 - The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii] The respondent No.1 - The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is directed to
re-consider the pre-independence documents relied by
the petitioner, particularly of the years 1934, 1938 and
1955 and decide the caste claim afresh within a period
of three months from the date of order produced
before him by the petitioner.
12 9-J-WP-7419-2024.doc
iv] In the meantime, the interim order dated
12/03/2025 protecting the services of the petitioner
shall continue, till the decision of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
v] Rule is made absolute in above terms with no
order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 16:38:01
