Bombay High Court
Shrawani Vithal Gonewad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:23187-DB
1 WP-11937-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11937 OF 2024
1. Shrawani D/o Vithal Gonewad,
Age: 25 years, Occupation: Education,
R/o : Plot No.75, Vyankateshwarnagar,
Wadi (Bk), Purna Road, Near Poddar,
School Nanded, District Nanded. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate,
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat,
Head Office Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Through its Member Secretary. .... Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar (Senior Advocate) h/f Mr. Deepak Chaudhari
and Mr. Vijay G. Gangalwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. P. J. Bharad, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Reserved on : 31st July, 2025
Pronounced on : 26th August, 2025
JUDGMENT :
[PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 27/09/2024, passed by
Respondent No.2 - Committee, invalidating the Petitioner's claim of
belonging to the 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
2 WP-11937-2024.odt
2. The Petitioner took admission for Bachelor of Medicine and
Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) on the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
She was required to submit the validity certificate towards the Scheduled
Tribe. Her caste certificate of belonging to the ' Mannervarlu' Scheduled
Tribe was sent for verification to Respondent No.2 - Committee. The
Respondent No.2 - Committee directed the Vigilance Inquiry. After the
Vigilance Cell submitted its report, the Respondent No.2 - Committee
invited the Petitioner for hearing. The Petitioner submitted the
documents of her father and validity of her uncle in support of her tribe
claim as belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe. The Respondent
No.2 - Committee invalidated her tribe claim, cancelled and confiscated
her caste certificate and directed action under Section 10 to Section 12 of
the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation Of Issuance And Verification Of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') against
the Petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner that, the uncle of Petitioner by name Somesh Narayan
Gonewad is holding validity towards 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe,
which was issued by Respondent No.2 - Committee after following due
procedure and the Respondent No.2 - Committee held that, the relation
3 WP-11937-2024.odt
with him was not established by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had
submitted the revenue record of her great grandfather by name Sayanna
s/o Sayanna Gonewad, wherein, the caste is mentioned as ' Mannervarlu'
and the said entry was of the year 1936 (1346 Fasli). The Respondent
No.2 - Committee discarded the same on the ground that, the said
document was submitted to the Respondent No.2 - Committee by one
Rameshwar Gajanan Chandewar in support of his tribe claim, which was
found to be fabricated. The Respondent No.2 - Committee discarded the
documents of the Petitioner's father showing the caste as ' Mannervarlu'.
He would further submit that, the impugned order was not sustainable in
the eye of law and the same be set aside and the Writ Petition be allowed.
In support of his submissions, he relied on the following Judgments :
(i) Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others ; 2010 (6) Mh. L. J. 401 ;
(ii) Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others decided
by this Court, in Writ Petition No.5611/2018, on 27/07/2018 ;
(iii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others ; 2023 SCC Online SC 326 ;
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP that, the Petitioner failed
to prove her claim towards 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe. There was
no material to establish that, the validity holder by name Somesh
Narayan Gonewad was related by blood with the Petitioner. The
Genealogy submitted by the Petitioner in her case and the Genealogy
4 WP-11937-2024.odt
submitted by Somesh Narayan Gonewad in his file do not match. During
inquiry, the statement of Narayan Gonewad, who is the father of Somesh
Gonewad, was recorded, in which, he stated that, his late grandfather by
name Chinnanna Gonewad was illiterate and he had no siblings. He
further stated that, his late father by name Sayanna Chinnanna Gonewad
was illiterate and he had no siblings. The great grandfather's name of the
Petitioner was Sayanna and the name of great grandfather of Somesh
Gonewad was Chinnanna. This shows that, they do not belong to the
same family and were not in blood relation. The old entry in the revenue
record was fabricated, as in the case of one Rameshwar Gajanan
Chandewar, the revenue record of 1937 (1347 Fasli) was relied by the
said Claimant and the Committee found that, both the said entries that is,
relied by the Petitioner and relied by the said Rameshwar Gajanan
Chandewar were from the same village, same tehsil office, same record
and from the same number on the same page, which show that, two
different entries were made against the same number in the same revenue
record. There were contra entries in the school record of the cousin uncle
and cousin aunt of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 - Committee has
rightly considered the claim and passed the impugned order and,
therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (Supra), the claim of the
Petitioner therein towards Kanjar Bhat - Nomadic Tribe was invalidated by
5 WP-11937-2024.odt
the concerned Committee and the main grievance of the Petitioner therein
was that, her caste certificate ought not to have been invalidated in view of
the undisputed facts that the certificate of her sister for the same tribe was
validated by the concerned Scrutiny Committee and it was the contention
that, the sister was related by blood from the paternal side and there was no
reason for invalidating the tribe claim. This Court observed that, the
Committee would be entitled to refuse to follow the caste validity certificate
granted to a blood relative if it appears to the Committee that the earlier
caste certificate was scrutinized by a Committee without jurisdiction or the
validity order was obtained by committing fraud on the Committee. It was
further observed that, the Committee, which had expressed a doubt about
the validity of caste claim of the Petitioner and described it as a mistake in
its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion and further
observed that, merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the
Committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.
6. In Shweta Balaji Isankar (Supra), the subject matter was the
invalidation of the tribe claim by the concerned Scrutiny Committee.
Though the real uncle and cousin uncle of the Petitioner therein were
having the validity for the same tribe and the Petitioner therein had
established a relationship with the said validity holders, the concerned
Scrutiny Committee had issued the show-cause notices to the validity
holders. The reason assigned in the impugned order therein was not
6 WP-11937-2024.odt
found to be sustainable, and justification in the affidavit was also not
found enough to straightaway discard the certificate of the validity issued
in the family and the Petition was allowed and the validity certificate,
which was directed to be issued to the Petitioner therein, was made
subject to the consequences, which would follow in the event of
invalidation of the validity certificates, which were opened by the
Scrutiny Committee.
7. In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(Supra), the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether
paramount importance should be given to the affinity test while
adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste certificate issued
by a Competent Authority i.e. whether the affinity test is a litmus test for
deciding a caste claim. It was observed that, the affinity test cannot be
applied as a litmus test and further observed that, the question of
conducting the affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny
Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the Applicant.
It was further observed that, if the relationship pleaded by the Applicant
with the validity holder was not established, the other evidence produced
by the Applicant and result of the affinity test can be taken into
consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.
7 WP-11937-2024.odt
8. Coming to the case at hand, the subject matter falls within
the ambit of the Act of 2000. As per Section 8 of the Act of 2000, the
burden of proving that, the person belong to such Caste, Tribe or Class
shall be on such person. It is also the settled position under the law that,
if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents submitted
by the Applicant in support of his / her tribe claim, the claim is to be
referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry and its report. After considering
overall material before it, the Scrutiny Committee is required to decide
the tribe claim by giving an opportunity to the Applicant.
9. We have perused the papers on record and files made
available by the learned AGP. There is no dispute on the aspect that, the
Petitioner was given the opportunity by Respondent No.2 - Committee
before passing the impugned order. The impugned order shows that, the
Petitioner, in support of her tribe claim, relied on the school record of
herself having the entries towards 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe dated
04/06/2003 and 18/06/2011 and the school record of her father having the
entries as 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe dated 26/06/1986 and the
validity certificate of 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe of the said Somesh
Narayan Gonewad issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 15/06/2010.
10. Heavy reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the validity
certificate of the said Somesh Narayan Gonewad. The Petitioner claims
8 WP-11937-2024.odt
that, Somesh Narayan Gonewad was her cousin uncle from the paternal
side. On this aspect, the Respondent No.2 - Committee observed in the
impugned order that, the Petitioner had not submitted the affidavit of the
said Somesh Narayan Gonewad in support of her tribe claim. The
Petitioner and her father, during the Vigilance Inquiry, gave the following
Genealogy, which is reproduced below :
10.1. In the impugned order, the Respondent No.2 -
Committee observed that, during the Vigilance Inquiry in the case of
Somesh Narayan Gonewad, the statement of father of Somesh Gonewad,
namely, Narayan Gonewad was recorded on 16/12/2009, wherein, he
stated that, his grandfather's name was Chinnanna Gunewad, who was
uneducated and his said grandfather had no siblings and he was alone.
9 WP-11937-2024.odt
Said Narayan Gonewad, gave the following Genealogy, which is
reproduced below :
10.2. On the basis of the above-referred two (2) Genealogies,
which were collected during the Vigilance Inquiry of the Petitioner and
Vigilance Inquiry of Somesh Gonewad, respectively, the Respondent
No.2 - Committee observed that, in the Genealogy submitted by the
Petitioner and Petitioner's father, the grandfather of Somesh Gonewad
was Sayanna Sayanna Gonewad and in the Genealogy given by Narayan
Gonewad, the grandfather of Somesh was Sayanna Chinnanna and,
therefore, the Respondent No.2 - Committee arrived at the conclusion
that, the Petitioner submitted the false Genealogy in support of the claim
and answered the issue as to whether the Petitioner can be given benefit
of the validity issued to Somesh Gonewad, in the negative.
10 WP-11937-2024.odt
11. Admittedly, as can be seen from the impugned order,
Somesh Gonewad had not come forward with an Affidavit before the
Respondent No.2 - Committee in support of the Petitioner's claim. We
had the opportunity to peruse the record of Respondent No.2 -
Committee of Somesh Gonewad and the Petitioner. From the statement
of Narayan, his grandfather by name Chinnanna Gonewad had no
siblings, whereas, according to the Petitioner's father, his grandfather was
Sayanna Sayanna Gonewad. There is no reference of Chinnanna
Gonewad in the Genealogy submitted by the Petitioner's father. The
impugned order shows that, the Petitioner failed to show that, the Somesh
Gonewad was related to her by blood. Unless it is established that, the
validity holder is related by blood, benefit of such validity cannot be
reopened. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the
said validity of Somesh Gonewad. Therefore, we do not find that, the
Respondent No.2 - Committee has committed any error in not placing
reliance on the validity of Somesh Gonewad.
12. The impugned order further shows that, the Vigilance Cell
collected the school records of the persons, which the Petitioner claims to
have been related with them. The entries in the said school record were
of 'Mannervarlu' and dated 11/06/1990, 16/06/1986 and 18/06/1985.
From the dates of the said entries, it is clear that, those are of post-
constitution era. One of the document collected by the Vigilance Cell is
11 WP-11937-2024.odt
the Revenue record (Pahani Pathrak in Modi Script) and it has been
translated in Marathi language. The said entry is of 1346 Fasli, i.e. of the
year - 1936, in the name of Sayanna Sayanna Gonewad Mannervarlu.
The Petitioner claims that, the said Sayanna was her great grandfather.
The said entry or document is reproduced below :
13. It is the settled position in law that, the pre-constitution era
entry has more probative value. The above document, which has the
entry of pre-constitution period, is considered by the Respondent No.2 -
Committee and discarded the same on the ground that, the document,
which was having pre-constitution period entry, submitted by one
Rameshwar Gajanan Chandewar in support of his claim towards
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe, was from the same village, same register,
same page having same number with different names and observed that,
the record from the said Tehsil Office was fabricated. The said document
12 WP-11937-2024.odt
of pre-constitution period submitted by the said Rameshwar Gajanan
Chandewar is reproduced below :
14. The impugned order further shows that, the said
Rameshwar Gajanan Chandewar challenged his invalidation before this
Court in Writ Petition No.9755/2024, decided by order dated 10/09/2024
and this Court, made the following observations in Paragraph No.17 of
that Judgment :
"17. So far as 1347 Fasli revenue record is concerned, we need not
repeat the observations of the committee which have already been
mentioned earlier. The fact that though it was a record coming from the
record of Tehsil office, Biloli, District - Nanded, no exception can be taken
to the inference drawn by the committee based on what could be noticed
even by the translator. The column on the left side of page contained
entries in Modi script whereas only the columns on the right side page in
the remarks column, appeared in Urdu. The seal impressed apparently
having Urdu script, was also smudged one and the ink appeared fresh.
Surprisingly, even the columns were drawn in pencil and the line appeared
even on the already impressed stamp. Meaning thereby that it was not a
ruled page having the seal but it was a page having the seal whereupon the
lines were drawn. If such was the condition of the record, no exception can
be taken to the inference drawn by the committee that it was a dubious
record and refusing to accept it as a proof to substantiate petitioner's
claim."
13 WP-11937-2024.odt
15. A close scrutiny of the above documents shows that, the
second entry is the same, except for the names in the column just before
the column wherein crops are shown. This clearly shows that, the
findings of Respondent No.2 - Committee that, the names of two
different persons are shown against the same number on the same page of
the same register of same Tehsil Office and the same was fabricated, is
based on the material on record. When the pre-constitution era entry or
document is found to be fabricated, the Petitioner cannot derive any
benefit from the same. No fault can be found with the decision of
Respondent No.2 - Committee in discarding the said old document.
16. The impugned order further shows that, during the Vigilance
Inquiry, the Vigilance Cell collected school record of the blood relatives
of the Petitioner. The chart showing the necessary details from the said
record shown in the impugned order is reproduced below :
अ) अर्जदार यांनी प्रस्तावासह सादर के लेल्या दस्तऐवजाव्यतिरीक्त पोलीस दक्षता पथकाच्या चौकशी
दरम्यान अर्जदार यांचे रक्तसंबंधी नातेवाईकांच्या शालेय प्रवेश व निर्गम अभिलेखातील मूळ जातीत
नियमबाहय फे रबदल नोंदी खालीलप्रमाणे प्राप्त करण्यात आलेल्या आहेत :-
अ. शाळेचे नाव प्रवेश विद्यार्थ्याचे अर्जदारा जातीची नोंद प्रवेश दिनांक
क्र. क्रमांक नाव शी नाते
१. जि.प. माध्यमिक १/३२१ रमेश काका M.Kapu १४/०८/१९७४
शाळा कोलूर मंडल नागनाथ
तानुर, ता. निर्मल गोनेवाड
14 WP-11937-2024.odt
२. जि.प. माध्यमिक २/१५२ विठ्ठल वडील Munurkapu १७/०७/१९७९
शाळा कोलूर मंडल नागनाथ
तानुर, ता. निर्मल
३. जि.प. माध्यमिक ३/२१२ महेश रमेश चुलत BC २४/०६/२००२
शाळा कोलूर मंडल गोनेवाड भाऊ Munnurkapu
तानुर, ता. निर्मल
४. जि.प. माध्यमिक ४/१७२२ निता रमेश चुलत BC १५/०६/२०१०
शाळा कोलूर मंडल गोनेवाड बहीण Munnurkapu
तानुर, ता. निर्मल
17. The above entries in the school record of the Petitioner's
father, paternal uncle, cousin brother and cousin sister show their caste as
'Munurkapu' 'M.Kapu' 'BC Munnurkapu' and 'BC Munnurkapu',
respectively. These entries in respect of the caste of blood relatives of the
Petitioner are at complete variance with the claim of the Petitioner
towards 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe. These entries further create a
severe dent to the Petitioner's claim. The Respondent No.2 - Committee
has recorded the finding that, 'Munurkapu' caste is different from the
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
18. The Respondent No.2 - Committee also recorded the finding
that, the Petitioner failed in the affinity test. In Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra), it is observed that, affinity test
cannot be applied as a litmus test . It is further observed therein that, we
may again note here that question of conduct of the affinity test arises
15 WP-11937-2024.odt
only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with
the material produced by the applicant. There is an argument made that,
as far as SC Rules are concerned, clause (d) of Rule 13 specifically
provides for Vigilance Cell conducting an affinity test and there is no
such pari materia provision in the ST Rules. We are unable to accept this
submission as sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules enjoins the
vigilance officer to collect facts about the social status of the applicant or
his parents, as the case may be. Therefore, sub-rule (5) provides for the
examination of the applicant and his parents. For verification of social
status as contemplated by sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, in a
given case, affinity test can be resorted to by the Vigilance Cell.
19. The Petitioner has filed Affidavit dated 28/07/2025 in the
present Writ Petition stating that, after filing of the Writ Petition, the
Petitioner got the certified copies of revenue records such as Pahani
Pathrak, in which, it is shown that, Sayanna's father was Sayanna and in
the revenue record of Koloor Tanoor Mandal 2001 - 2002, the name of
grandfather and cousin grandfather are mentioned in Telugu language and
the translation in English was made. It is further stated that, from the
said documents, it was established that, Nagnath and Narayan were the
real brothers and their father's name was Sayanna. It is further stated
that, during the course of Vigilance Inquiry, the Vigilance Officer
produced the Genealogy, in which, Narayan and Nagnath are shown as
16 WP-11937-2024.odt
real brothers and, therefore, the Vigilance Officer has not disputed the
relationship of the Petitioner with the validity holder Somesh Narayan
Gonewad as the cousin uncle of the Petitioner. The copies of the said
documents are enclosed with the Affidavit.
20. As regard the documents submitted by the Petitioner along
with the Affidavit, they are of post-constitution period. From the said
documents, the Petitioner wants to show that, Narayan and Nagnath were
the real brothers and their father's name is shown as Sayanna. However,
in light of the above discussion in respect of the Genealogy submitted
during the Petitioner's tribe claim and the Genealogy in the case of
Somesh Gonewad and the statement of Narayan i.e. the father of Somesh
Gonewad recorded during the Inquiry, these documents by itself will not
be of any assistance to the Petitioner in support of the tribe claim.
Therefore, we do not see any merit in the submission of the learned
Senior Advocate for the Petitioner that, the matter may be remanded to
Respondent No.2 - Committee for fresh consideration.
21. In light of the above discussion, the impugned order needs
no interference, as it is based on the documents available on record. The
Petitioner failed to establish her tribe claim. We find no merit in the Writ
Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following
order :
17 WP-11937-2024.odt
ORDER
. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.]
Sameer
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 11:26:27
