Bombay High Court
Ram Sudhakar Jawanjal vs The S. T. Certificate Scrutiny ... on 18 August, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8126-DB
1 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7393 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Ram Sudhakar Jawanjal
Age @ 26 yrs, Occ - Student,
R/o Daryapur, Tq. Daryapur,
Dist. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati,
through its Chairman having its
Office at Opp. Rest House,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. The Principal
Sau. Shardadevi Pandit Polytechnic
College, Chatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
Road, Alni (Gadpati), Dharashiv,
Dist. Usmanabad - 413501.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 08/08/2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 18/08/2025
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 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 04/10/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 - The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, thereby
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
3. The facts in brief of the petition are as under :-
The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Thakur"
Scheduled Tribe, which is at Sr. No.44 in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Accordingly, he obtained the
Caste Certificate dated 10/11/2020 from the Competent Authority.
4. The petitioner on the basis of Caste Certificate obtained
from the Competent Authority, secured his admission in Diploma
of Mechanical Engineering in respondent No.2 - Institute. The
respondent No.2 forwarded his caste claim to the respondent No.1
- The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (For short,
"Committee") on 01/02/2024 for verification.
5. The petitioner along with his application, which was
forwarded by respondent No.2 enclosed the pre-independence era
documents to establish the fact that he belongs to the caste of
"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe and more particularly, he has relied
3 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
upon the documents of his forefathers dated 10/12/1926,
18/06/1926 and of the year 1940. According to him, the
documents of his great-grand-father clearly establish that he
belongs to caste of "Thakur".
6. That after forwarding the Tribe claim to the respondent
No.1 - Committee, the documents were forwarded to the Vigilance
Cell for it's verification. Vigilance Cell accordingly conducted
enquiry and submitted its report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee
on 20/09/2024. Vigilance Cell has procured Dakhal-Kharij
Register extract in the name of Ganpat Amrut from Maharana
Pratap Nagar Parishad Primary School dated 01/07/2024 which
shows his caste as "Bhat". Vigilance Cell also collected the extract
of Dakhal Kharij Register from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar
Parishad, Primary Marathi School, Daryapur dated 10/12/1926,
wherein, the caste of Ganpat Amrut is recorded as "Thakur".
Revenue entry dated 17/09/1948 wherein the entry in the name
of Ganpat Amrut (great-grand-father) was shown to be of
"Thakur". As such, on the basis of these documents collected and
verified by the Vigilance Cell, along with a genealogical tree
submitted it's report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
4 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
7. That after receipt of report of Vigilance Cell, the
respondent No.1 - Committee on the same date, issued a notice
dated 20/09/2024 to the petitioner and thereby, asked the
petitioner to tender his explanation to the report received from the
Vigilance Cell.
8. Petitioner after receipt of show cause notice, on
23/09/2024 tendered his explanation and specifically stated that
he has relied upon the pre-indepencence era documents pertaining
to his great-grand-father namely; Ganpat Amrut i.e. school extract
dated 10/12/1926 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Parishad,
Primary Marathi School, Daryapur, mutation entry dated
17/09/1948 in which it is clearly stated that the caste of his great-
grand-father recorded as "Thakur". As such, these entries
corroborate his submission. In respect of entry collected by the
Vigilance Cell of Ganpat Amrut dated 01/07/1924 showing his
caste as a "Bhat", the petitioner clarified that said entry seems to
be wrongly recorded by the concerned school authorities because
said entry does not disclose the full name of his great-grand-father
and further the details of the same, do not match with the
consistent entries recorded in the School and Revenue record in
the name of his great-grand-father. Hence, it is stated that the
5 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
isolated entry dated 01/07/1924 showing the caste of petitioner as
a "Bhat" requires to be discarded, in the light of other documents
relied by him wherein the entry of his great-grand-father is
recorded as "Thakur".
9. In the background of abovesaid factual position, the
respondent No.1 - Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim
of the petitioner. And by the impugned order, the learned Caste
Scrutiny Committee without considering explanation of petitioner
and documents relied by him only on the basis of solitary entry of
01/07/1924 rejected the Tribe claim of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner in support of his submission, has relied
upon the following case laws :-
i] 2024 SCC On-Line Bom. 3270 (Pradip Bhimrao Nichale and
another Vrs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Member Secretary and others), Para
Nos.16 and 17 of which are reproduced as under :
"16. So far as entry No.1 is concerned, name is shown as
Ramkrushna Ganpat, however, there is no person by name
Ramkrushna in the family tree. This entry shows date of birth of
said Ramkrushna is 19/09/1918, whereas, Shriram Ganpat's
date of birth is 19/09/1926. The said Ramkrushna was admitted
in school on 12/09/1923, whereas Shriram Ganpat is admitted
in school on 19/03/1931. As such, the said entry is not at all in
6 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
respect of relatives of the petitioner. Other three entries are of
post independence era. In the said entries also there is mention
of 'Thakur' along with 'Bhat', however, Caste Scrutiny
Committee conveniently not considered 'Thakur' mentioned in
these documents. It is nobody's case that documents produced
by the petitioner since 1931 are fraudulent or manipulated. As
such, discarding those old entries having greater probative value
and relying on the stray entries of 1956 showing 'Bhat' is
nothing but erroneous and perverse order passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. It needs to be noted that in the documents
of 1956 and 1954 also there is mention of 'Thakur' apart from
that these three documents are subsequent to the other old
documents showing entry 'Thakur'. Certainly, the old documents
are having greater probative value.
17. So far as affinity is concerned, the learned Caste Scrutiny
Committee ought not to have rejected the claim specifically
when the documents produced by the petitioner on record
showing consistent entry as 'Thakur'. Otherwise also it is settled
position of law that affinity test is not a litmus test to be
applied."
ii] 2024 SCC On-Line Bom. 1881 (Sanjay Vrs. Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate, through its Vice-Chairman/Jt. Commissioner and
others, Para Nos.10, 11 and 15 of which are reproduced as under :
"10. A perusal of entry in the school admission register, for the
year 1940 depicts that the father of petitioner Sanjay was born on
10.11.1932 and his caste was shown as "Thakur." The said entry
appears before the entry of the year 1935. The said document
along with 6 other pre-independent era documents or their
genuineness is neither disputed nor denied by the Committee or
vigilance Cell, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve the entries
in said documents. The said 7 documents are from the year 1938
to 1950 and in all those documents, a caste of the ancestors of
the petitioners is shown as "Thakur." The said documents have
more probative value.
11. The main controversy arises whether a single
indeterminate entry in the ambiguous document would prevail
over the other undisputed entries in 7 pre-constitutional era
documents. Certainly, in our opinion consistent entries in 7
undisputed pre-constitutional era documents would prevail over
the ambiguous single entry as entries in 7 documents have more
probative value than a single ambiguous entry in an indecisive
document. Moreover, the learned counsel has submitted that in
view of the dictum laid down in the judgments in the cases of
7 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
Harshal s/o. Rajendra Thakur, Rahul S/o. Ramesh Shinde, Yogesh
Macchindra More, and Ranjit Dadosa More (cited supra) the
single entry is not sufficient to discard the claim of the petitioners
that they belong to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe since the other 7
oldest entries of the pre-constitutional era are having greater
probative value. Besides, it cannot be ignored that the petitioners
have categorically denied the entry of the year 1935 as well as
their relationship with the alleged Ramkrushna. Thus, it appears
that the said document is under the cloud. In such an eventuality,
it cannot be said that the said vague document of the year 1935
vitiates the entries of other documents or claims of the petitioners
as they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
15. Thus, to sum up the aforesaid discussion, it clearly reveals
that the petitioners in support of their claim have relied upon as
many as seven pre-constitutional era documents from the year
1938 to 1950. In all those documents, the caste of the ancestors
of the petitioners is mentioned as "Thakur". It also seems that the
oldest entry is of the year 1932 i.e. before the disputed and vague
entry of the year 1935. However, the Committee has not
considered the entries in the other seven documents and has
given undue importance to the entry in one disputed and vague
document and negated the claim of the petitioner."
iii] 2023 SCC On-Line Bom. 2565 (Ashlesha and another Vrs.
Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others), Para No.13 of which is
reproduced as under :-
"13. Perusal of the record nowhere reflects that the Committee
recorded its reasons as to dissatisfaction of the record and its
reasons for referring the application to the vigilance. The
Committee placed reliance on the documents collected by the
Vigilance Cell showing adverse entries in the name of some of so
claimed ancestors of petitioners who are recorded as "Bhat". The
Vigilance Cell and the Scrutiny Committee placed reliance on
two entries; viz. (1) birth extract registering birth entry of one
"Balwant" showing male child was born on 27.3.1916 wherein
he was recorded as "Bhat" and (2) birth entry of daughter of
"Keshav" viz. "Gani" showing "Keshav" as "Bhat" dated 5.3.1953.
While replying the Notice issued by the Committee, after receipt
of the Vigilance Cell Report, petitioners denied any relationship
with both entries. As far as entry No.2 is concerned, though
petitioners denied any connection with the said entry, pleadings
show that petitioners admitted that "Keshav" has one daughter.
Placing reliance on these entries, the Committee has invalidated
8 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
the tribe claim of petitioners by giving weightage to the
documents obtained by the Vigilance Cell. Admittedly, there are
consistent entries since 1913 showing forefathers of petitioners
as "Thakur". While ignoring the said entries, the Committee has
not given any reasons for such considerations. Insofar as entry
showing "Balwant" is recorded as "Bhat" in birth extract entry
dated 27.3.1916, which is denied by petitioners with specific
contention that the said entry is not related to their family
members. The respondents could not point out through any
documents that the said entry relates to "Balwant" who is shown
in the family tree."
iv] 2024 SCC On-Line Bom. 2759 (Sarthak Vrs. State of
Maharashtra, through its Secretary and others), Para No.16 of
which is reproduced as under :-
"16. After going through the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee, it appears that, in two entries of the year 1911 and
1915 in respect of one Shamrao, his caste is shown as 'Bhat', on
that basis, the claim of the petitioner was invalidated. It is very
surprising that, there are as many as 11 documents of pre-
independence era showing the caste of the petitioner as 'Thakur'
and those are not disputed. It is also a matter of record that, the
documents placed on record i.e. in respect of old documents,
there are detailed description of the person i.e. his father's name,
surname and caste whereas two documents which are picked up
by the Vigilance Cell and Scrutiny Committee are having no
details of the said person. The entry only shows that Shamrao
gave birth to one son, his caste entry is shown as 'Bhat', the said
entry is of year 1911, second document is in respect of Shamu
who gave birth to a daughter on 14/04/1915. When the Scrutiny
Committee called explanation from the petitioner it was duly
explained by the petitioner. Thereafter, burden lies upon the
Scrutiny Committee to establish the relation of the person with
the petitioner specifically when there are no details of the person
about his father's name or surname. It is alleged that these
documents were deliberately suppressed, however, there is no
substance in this allegation as they are not related with the
petitioner. In fact, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee is bent
upon to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner. The
petitioner produced as many as 30 documents including revenue
record and pre-independence documents. It is a common
knowledge that, there are many persons by the same name in the
village. However, if there is further description, then only the
person can be said to be related with the petitioner. There are
details of Shamrao Naroba Thakur in the documents produced by
the petitioner and these documents are not disputed."
9 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 - Committee vehemently opposed the petition by stating that
the entry which is relied upon by the respondent - Committee
dated 01/07/1924 is the oldest entry collected by the Vigilance
Cell. As such, the old entry being of "Bhat", the subsequent entries
are of no assistance to decide the caste claim of the petitioner.
Therefore, decision of respondent - Committee cannot be faulted.
Hence, it is stated that there is no illegality in the impugned order
and accordingly, petition being devoid of merit, same deserves to
be dismissed.
12. We have considered the rival submissions made before
us and also perused the entire record as well as original record
produced by the respondent No.1 - Committee. We have also gone
through the case laws, which the petitioner has relied upon to
substantiate his submission.
13. That from the case laws which the petitioner has relied
upon the legal position emerge is that a single entry which is not
substantially supported by other corroborative evidence would not
prevail over the undisputed entries of pre-constitutional era
document, particularly when all other entries relied upon by the
10 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
petitioner are consistent and shows that the caste is rightly
recorded by the Educational as well as Revenue Authorities.
14. The petitioner has taken us through the genealogical
tree, which is undisputed in the present matter. As per the
genealogical tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell, admittedly
Ganpat Amrut is the grand-father of the petitioner. Therefore, the
entries recorded in educational and Revenue record in the name of
great-grand-father are relevant in the matter because same are
pre-independence era documents.
15. The petitioner has firstly pointed out the school leaving
extract of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Nagar Parishad, Higher
Primary School, Daryapur. The said document shows the column
of caste in the name of great-grand-father as "Thakur". As per the
said document, date of birth of grand-father is recorded as
01/07/1916 and date of admission in the school is recorded as
10/12/1926 and date of leaving the school is recorded as
19/07/1932. This document is not disputed in the present
petition.
16. The further document which petitioner has relied upon
is the School Leaving Certificate of great-grand-father dated
11 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
18/06/1926 wherein the caste of great-grand-father is recorded as
"Thakur" and revenue entry dated 01/03/1942 recorded in the
office of Tahsildar, Daryapur wherein the caste of the petitioner
grand-father was recorded as "Thakur".
17. In the light of above documentary evidence, we have
perused the impugned order to verify as to how committee has
dealt with this issue but surprisingly, we notice that there is no
consideration to the consistent entries recorded in the name of
grand-father as "Thakur". The respondent No.1 - Committee only
by relying upon the solitary entry dated 01/07/1924 which shows
the caste of grand-father as a "Bhat" rejected the caste claim of
petitioner.
18. Respondent No.1 - Committee before relying upon the
entry dated 01/07/2024 was expected to consider the reply of
petitioner given to the Vigilance Cell Report then ought to have
discussed the reasons as to why entries of subsequent years of
same person in School and Revenue are recorded as "Thakur"
cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, it is the document obtained
by Vigilance Cell is from other school and document relied by
petitioner is from other school. But, respondent - committee failed
12 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
to consider the material aspects while deciding the Tribe claim of
petitioner. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the order of
respondent No.1 - committee to invalidate the caste of petitioner
on the basis of solitary entry as "Bhat".
19. That as per the case laws relied upon by petitioner,
pre-independence documents are having great probative value,
therefore, entries which are consistently showing the caste of
grand-father recorded as "Thakur" cannot be disbelieved only on
the basis of sole adverse entry of same person. Hence, applying the
law laid down by this Court and particularly the observations
made therein, which are reproduced above, we are of the opinion
that impugned order is bad in law.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, we conclude that the
petitioner proved his Tribe claim as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe and
entitled for the Caste Validity Certificate. Hence, we proceed to
pass the following order :-
ORDER
i] The writ petition is allowed.
ii] The impugned order dated 04/10/2024 passed
by respondent No.1 - The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case
No.5/503/Edu/022024/261469 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
13 8-WP-J-7393-2024.doc
iii] It is declared that the petitioner has duly
established that he belongs to "Thakur" Scheduled
Tribe, which is at Sr. No.44 in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
iv] The respondent No.1 - The Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby
directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate of "Thakur"
Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner within a period of
four weeks.
v] Rule is made absolute in the 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: 19/08/2025 11:17:28
