Bombay High Court
Shraddha Sharad Wardekar vs The S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8243-DB
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2024
Shraddha Sharad Wardekar,
Age 31, Occ.: Student,
R/o. Mahavir Colony, Bypass Road,
Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim,
444403 ....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yawatmal. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2024
Shreyas Sharad Wardekar,
Age 29, Occ.: Student,
R/o. Mahavir Colony, Bypass Road,
Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim,
444403 ....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yawatmal ...RESPONDENT
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 2/21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.P.Mahalle, Advocate with Shri V.G. Ingole, Advocate for
petitioner(s).
Ms. D.V.Sapkal, AGP for respondent(s)/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12/08/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 21/08/2025
JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the common impugned order
dated 20/06/2024, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short, "the Scrutiny
Committee"), invalidating the tribe claims of the petitioners
for 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribes, the petitioners have filed the
present Writ Petitions.
4. As the order arises out of the common order dated
20/06/2024 and also the grievance is similar in both the
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 3/21
matters, henceforth, we will consider the Writ Petition
7327/2024 as the lead petition.
5. The facts of the case in brief are as under:-
The Petitioners belong to the 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe listed at Serial No. 44 of the Scheduled Tribe Order,
1950. The petitioners are pursuing their education. Since the
Petitioners did not have a validity certificates issued in their
favour, they are pursuing their education from the Open
Category. Subsequent to the admission of the Petitioners in
the college, they submitted their Tribe claims belonging to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe through the college to the Scrutiny
Committee.
6. It is further contended by the petitioners that,
along with their claims, the Petitioners submitted a family
tree and 38 documents, including several pre-independence
records of high probative value to establish their caste status.
Further, 12 of their close relatives, whose relationship with
them is traceable from the family tree, have already been
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 4/21
issued validity certificates. Notably, in the cases of four
relatives, this Court itself directed to grant the validity. In this
case, the Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry and submitted
its report on 01/03/2023, which was considered by the
Scrutiny Committee. However, by an order dated
20/06/2024, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the
Petitioners' tribe claims.
7. The impugned order is now under challenge before
this Court, as it was passed without proper consideration of
the material on record and by relying on the documents of
strangers unrelated to the petitioners. Additionally, the
Scrutiny Committee's rejection is inconsistent with its own
stand taken earlier in the proceedings concerning the
Petitioners' relatives, as evident from its reply filed before the
this Court in the case of Saurabh and Advait in Writ Petition
Nos. 5805 & 5788 of 2017, decided on 15/01/2019.
8. The petitioners had submitted the following
pre-independence documents:-
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 5/21
Name Relation Document Date of Caste
document
Subhash Grandfather School Certificate 30.06.1943 Thakur
Kashirao (District Primary
School, Warda,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Suresh Cousin School Certificate 01.07.1947 Thakur
Kashirao Grandfather (District Primary
Wardekar School, Warda,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Sanjiv Cousin School Certificate 28.03.1938 Thakur
Vitthalrao Grandfather (District Primary
Wardekar School, Warda,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Vasanat Cousin School Certificate 01.03.1935 Thakur
Kashirao Grandfather (District Primary
Thakur School, Warda,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Pandit Cousin School Certificate 15.06.1939 Thakur
Kashirao Grandfather (District Primary
Thakur School, Warda,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Kashinath Great Extract of Alter- 13.07.1941 --
Madhavrao Grandfather ation (Revenue
Proof), Tehsil Of-
fice, Manora, Dis-
trict Washim
Kashinath Great School Certificate 03.09.1917 Thakur
Madhavrao Grandfather (District Primary
School, Giroli,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim)
Narayan Cousin Great School Certificate 03.09.1917 Thakur
Ramji Grandfather (District Primary
School, Giroli,
Taluka Manora,
District Washim
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 6/21
Purushottam Cousin School Certificate 01.03.1935 Thakur
Kashirao Grandfather
9. The genealogy submitted by the petitioners is as
under:-
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the following citation:-
(i) Ku. Prachita Dhanraj Gharat and anr. V/s. Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Through its Member Secretary,
Giripeth {2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2484
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 7/21
(ii) Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan V/s. Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati {2022(2) Mh.L.J. 136}
(iii) Anurag V/s. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Through its Vice Chairman/Joint Commissioner {2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1880}
(iv) Ku. Chhaya d/o Jasvantsingh Hajari V/s. The Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati and anr. {Judgment
of this Court in W.P. No. 4198/2005 with other connected matters}
(v) Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and ors. {2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401}
(vi) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s.
State of Maharashtra and ors. {2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785}
11. On the contrary, the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee submitted that, after a detailed inquiry, the
respondent invalidated the petitioners' claim to the 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe. In investigation, it is found that, the
petitioners' family was consistently recorded as "Bhat" or
"Patel" and held a high socio-economic status, which is
inconsistent with tribal characteristics.
12. The Scrutiny Committee further alleges that, the
petitioners suppressed crucial facts, including non-tribal
relatives and sale deeds for non-tribal lands. These
documents, along with a previous Court order and police
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 8/21
records, confirmed the family's non-tribal identity.
13. Finally, the respondent contends that, the
petitioners failed to address the adverse vigilance report and
that validity certificates of other relatives are not applicable
due to similar suppression of facts. The Scrutiny Committee's
order to invalidate their claims was therefore proper and
legally sound.
14. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the
record and documents placed on record, and considered the
citations relied on by the parties.
15. In all, there are 12 validity certificates issued to
the relatives of the petitioners showing their Tribe as
'Thakur'. The petitioners also placed on record the judgments
in other Writ Petitions, in which, the relatives of the
petitioners declared as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The
petitioners relied on judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o.
Vinay Nichale (supra), wherein this Court in para 7 and 9
held as under:-
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 9/21
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the
course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity
certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation
of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed
by the applicant, the committee may grant such
certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report.
However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste
certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without
jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and
may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it."
"9. In the present case, we find that the committee has
disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs to
Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving certificate of
petitioner's father and noticing that the original caste
written on it was `Thakur' and that was subsequently
changed to Kanjar Bhat. The committee observed that the
caste has been changed without complying with the
procedure prescribed by Section 48(e) and 132(3) of
Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact, the caste has
been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From the
findings of the committee it appears that the committee
has observed that the change of caste has been done
illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the
caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the same
view, otherwise it would have refused to grant validity.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the
committee which has expressed a doubt about the
validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described
it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a
different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity
of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as
on the future generations in many matters varying from
marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore
where a committee has given a finding about the validity
of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not
to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies.
A merely different view on the same facts would not
entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste
claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed
by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the
earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 10/21
bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is
entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition
initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order.
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the
petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above
terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to
furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner."
16. This Court in the matter of Saurabh and Advait
(supra) rightly observed that, "the impugned order contends that
the validity certificate to Dhanvijay was granted at the instance of
some orders passed by this Court. The Committee tried to
distinguish the ratio upon which the earlier validity was granted.
In fact the said exercise was uncalled for since there is no case of
obtaining validity by practicing fraud or misrepresentation. The
approach of the Committee of giving second class treatment to the
validity certificates issued at the instance of Court, is unapprovable.
Therefore, the earlier validities in the family cannot be brushed
aside on any count which necessitates to weigh the same in
petitioners favour."
17. The Scrutiny Committee passed a voluminous
order running into nearly 200 pages. However, the real
documents having more probative value, were not discussed
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 11/21
at all. The petitioners have produced several documents from
the pre-independence era right from the year 1917. There are
two documents of the year 1917. One pertains to Kashinath
Madhavrao Thakur and another pertains to Narayan Ramji
Thakur. The document in respect of Kashinath Madhavrao is
discarded only on the ground that, it is suspicious. However,
there is no any comment on the document in respect of
Narayan Ramji Thakur of the year 1917.
18. After perusal of record and proceedings, it
appears that, the petitioners raised objection with the entries
collected by the Vigilance Cell, which are not at all related
with the blood relatives. For example, we have pointed out
that, if Purushottam Wardekar is shown as 'Thakur', how his
son can be of 'Bhat Kanzar'. We have also seen the
documents, on which, the Scrutiny Committee has relied on.
The Scrutiny Committee discarded those documents having
great probative value. If the old documents prior to 1950 are
seen, there are documents of the years 1917, 1935, 1938, 1939,
1941 and 1947. All the blood relatives shown in these
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 12/21
documents, admittedly are appearing in the genealogy. Their
tribe is shown as 'Thakur'. Moreover, there are 12 validity
certificates issued in favour of the blood relatives placed on
record. Those validities are issued in view of three orders of
this Court. In spite of this factual position, the Scrutiny
Committee bent upon to discard the claims of the petitioners
on the ground that, the persons whose documents have been
collected, showing their caste as 'Kanzar Bhat', are
deliberately not mentioned in the genealogy.
19. As pointed out by the petitioners that, the
document pertains to Purushottam Kashirao is procured by
the Vigilance Cell and in that document, his tribe is shown as
'Thakur' which document pertains to dated 01/03/1935.
Therefore, his son cannot be 'Bhat Kanzar' at any rate. So far
as the entry in Kotwal Book in respect of birth of son namely
Murlidhar to Janardan Yadavrao Thakur, is showing tribe as
'Thakur' and the date is shown as 26/02/1945. This entry was
discarded only on the ground that, there is no name by
Murlidhar appearing in the genealogy. However, the Scrutiny
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 13/21
Committee conveniently has not considered the document in
respect of Janardan Yadavrao Thakur who gave birth to a
daughter namely Sulochana on 05/08/1947 and another
entry of daughter namely Kamla to Janardan Yadavrao
Thakur on 18/11/1949. It is a prevalent practice that, the
child is named in a naming ceremony after 12 days. These all
entries of the years 1945, 1947 & 1949 are showing the tribe as
'Thakur' of Janardan Yadavrao.
20. It is very surprising that, the Vigilance Cell
collected the document of 1946 in respect of Narayan Ramji
Thakur dated 19/04/1946, wherein the ancestor of the
petitioners shown as 'Thakur.' It has to be considered from
the place of residence as well as the father's name and other
details. The entry at Sr. No. 33 at page 103 is showing caste as
'Bhat' in 1969, is having no relevance, as the father of
Nandkishor namely Purushottam is shown as 'Thakur' in the
document of School record dated 01/03/1935. This fact is not
considered at all by the Scrutiny Committee and it appears
that, the documents pertain to Govind Manikrao Jawanjal,
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 14/21
which are of the years 1978 and 1991 are taken into account. It
is very surprising that, Govind Manikrao is shown as
grandson of sister of cousin great grandfather in the
documents of the years 1978 and 1991. Therefore, the entry of
grandson of sister of cousin great grandfather cannot be
considered as those documents are of 1978 and 1991 and not
in direct relation with the petitioners.
21. The entry at Sr. No. 37 at page 103 is in respect of
Sahadeo Vasudeo Pise showing his caste as 'Bhat'. It is
described that, the said Sahadeo Vasudeo Pise is real brother
of son-in-law of cousin grandfather. Similarly, there are many
entries which are not related at all to the petitioners. Even
Kamal Mahadeorao is described as cousin aunt of son-in-law
of cousin grandfather. It is randomly written by the Scrutiny
Committee while relying on the documents showing
'Kanzarban Bhat' or 'Kanzar Bhat'. For example, the
Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of Sahadeo Vasudeorao
Pise. From his statement, it is apparently clear that, he is a
resident of Chandur Bazar, his grandfather's name is
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 15/21
Sheshrao Yadavrao Pise. If the family tree placed by the
petitioners is perused, there is no name by Sheshrao. The
family tree given by said Sahadeo, is not at all matching with
the family tree given by the petitioners. Without verifying
this facts, the Scrutiny Committee jumped to the conclusion
that, the relatives of the petitioners belong to 'Bhat/Kanzar
Bhat'. Similarly, the statement of Chandrashekhar Ramdas
Pawar also shows that, he has no connection with the family
of the petitioners. The Scrutiny Committee has not discussed
the documents prior to 1950, which was produced by the
petitioners that, the tribe of their forefather is 'Thakur'.
22. Moreover, this Court has already directed to issue
validity certificates to the three relatives of the petitioners.
The respondent/Scrutiny Committee considered the
documents of the persons not related to the petitioners. The
Scrutiny Committee also placed reliance on the Sale-Deeds
wherein the persons executing it submitted that, they do not
belong to the Scheduled Tribe, however, this fact is not taken
into account that, there is no other caste/tribe mentioned in
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 16/21
the said Sale-Deeds. Secondly, even if there are some of the
relatives of the petitioners, the Sale-Deeds cannot be the proof
of the caste/tribe, as the documents prior to 1950 are already
placed on record by the petitioners showing their forefathers'
tribe as 'Thakur'. It is a common knowledge that, such
Sale-Deeds used to get executed by mentioning that, they do
not belong to Scheduled Tribe only to avoid permission from
the Collector's office to sell the property. However, the old
documents prior to 1950 are showing the tribe as 'Thakur'.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on Ku. Prachita Dhanraj Gharat and anr. (supra) in
support of his contention that, the old documents in respect
of the ancestor of the petitioners prior to cut-off date which
were placed on record, were erroneously discarded by the
Scrutiny Committee. The pre-constitutional documents or
documents prior to cut-off date have more probative value
than the subsequent documents.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 17/21
reliance on Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan (supra), wherein
this Court held as under:-
"14. In the instant case, the Committee has not relied
upon the decisions in these writ petitions on the
ground of suppression of the fact that caste claim of
Vijay was rejected and the challenge to the said order
was dismissed in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. It is
true that in subsequent petitions, there is no reference
to rejection of caste claim of Vijay or dismissal of the
Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. In our view,
suppression of these facts would be material only if the
caste claim of Vijay and of the Petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos. 5104 of 2019, 2131 of 2018 and 5105 of
2019 was based on the same documents. The
impugned order does not indicate that the caste claim
of the Petitioners in the aforestated writ petitions was
based on the very same documents relied upon by
Vijay, which were considered and rejected by the
Committee. By judgment dated 01.08.2018, the
Division Bench of this Court had dismissed a group of
petitions including the Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002.
The judgment does not mention the documents or the
other material relied by said Vijay in support of the
caste claim. In fact, a perusal of the said judgment
reveals that this Court had not adjudicated the caste
claim of Vijay independently and had not recorded
reasons for invalidating his claim. Moreover, it is on
record that the decision of this Court in the case of
Vijay Chavhan in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002 is
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Apex Court has continued the interim relief granted
by this Court in favour of the Petitioner-Vijay
Chavhan. Furthermore, the caste certificates issued in
favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners have not
been cancelled on the ground of fraud. In the absence
of proof of fraud or suppression of material facts, the
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 18/21
Committee was not justified in discarding the previous
judgments or in rejecting the caste claim of the
Petitioners only because the claim of their paternal
uncle Vijay was discarded."
25. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
reliance on Anurag (supra), in support of his contention that,
while deciding a bunch of petitions, without considering the
pre-constitutional documents, the caste validity certificate of
the relative is declined, and therefore, it cannot be considered
to decide the claim of the petitioners.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ku. Chhaya d/o
Jasvantsingh Hajari (supra), wherein, the question involved
was - When the pre-constitutional documents record the caste
as 'Thakur' and those documents are genuine, whether the
recourse to affinity test is open ? The answer to this, would
be that depending on affinity, is not essential nor suitable
because historical and documentary evidence are more
reliable than affinity tests.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 19/21
reliance on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded
as under:-
"36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding
an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced
by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance
Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the
Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for
coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with
the material produced by the applicant. Only after a
case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making
enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will
arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity
test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity
test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the
test along with all other material on record having
probative value will have to be taken into consideration
by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste
validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a
caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of
the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe
claim in every case."
28. Therefore, the impugned order running into
nearly 200 pages has not considered the relevant material and
discussed all irrelevant material i.e. the person whose claim
of validity is rejected as the documents of the person are not
even in relation with the petitioners. So far as the contention
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 20/21
of the respondent that, it is suppressed by the petitioners that,
the petition of one Aditya Anil Wardekar bearing No.
2918/2004 was dismissed by this Court on 01/08/2018.
However, the petitioners placed on record the reply of
learned AGP (page 282), wherein this fact of dismissal was
placed by the Scrutiny Committee on record. In spite of this,
this Court granted validity by its order dated 15/01/2019 to
Advait Wardekar as well as Saurabh Wardekar. In view of
this, there is no substance in the contention of the
respondent/Scrutiny Committee that, there was any
suppression of the fact. As such, the Scrutiny Committee has
not applied its mind and has passed an erroneous order,
which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
1) The Writ Petition is allowed.
2) The common impugned order dated 20/06/2024
passed by the respondent - Scheduled Tribe
905-WP 7327-2024-J+.odt 21/21
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in the
matter of the petitioners - (1) Shreyas Sharad
Wardekar and (2) Shraddha Sharad Wardekar in
Case Nos. 11/502/Edu/112022/3237 and
11/502/Edu/ 112022/3825, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
3) It is declared that the petitioners have duly
established that, they belong to 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe, which is entry No. 44 in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
4) The respondent - Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal to issue validity
certificates of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe to the
petitioners within a period of four weeks.
5) The Writ Petition stand disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/08/2025 17:12:40
