[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prasad Bhimrao Vishwe vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:33544-DB
14627.2019WP+(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14627 OF 2019
Shri Sachin S/o Bhimrao Vishve
Age - 34 years, Occ : Service,
R/o At Post Kachaner,
Tq. & District. Aurangabad.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Plot No.10,
Sector-E-1, Opposite Cidco Bus Stand,
Near Sent Lowrance School,
Town Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Ahamednagar.
3. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Company,
Division, Yewatmal
4. Deputy Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Pvt. Ltd., Company,
Sub-Division, Dist. Yewatmal.
... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11936 OF 2023
Prasad S/o Bhimrao Vishwe
Age - 30 years, Occ : Student,
R/o CIDCO, N-6, Sambhaji Colony,
F-27/9/10, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
sga 1/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary
... RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
•
Mr. S.P. Salgar, Advocate for Petitioner in WP No.14627/2019
•
Mr. Y.C. Yeramwar, Advocate for Petitioner in WP No.11936/2023
•
Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for State
•
Mr. A. R. Salve, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in WP
No.14627/2019.
_______________________________________________________________
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 27, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 04, 2025
J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil - Jadhav, J.] :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. These petitions are directed against the common order
dated 14.11.2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee,
invalidating the Tribe Claims of the petitioners of "Thakur, Scheduled
Tribes". The Committee invalidated the tribe claims of the petitioners on
the ground of area restrictions and affinity test.
sga 2/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
3. Petitioners have relied on various documents namely school
admission register, school leaving certificates, death extracts, caste
certificate, service book entry, which all mention caste as "Thakur". The
oldest entry is of 1922 in school leaving certificate of great grand-father
of the petitioners.
4. Heard learned advocates for the petitioners and learned
AGP for State. Perused the original record made available by learned
AGP.
5. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would submit that in
view of the pre-constitutional record, Committee ought to have
accepted the Tribe Claims of the petitioners. He would submit that the
approach of the Committee in ignoring the pre-constitutional entry and
relying on entry of the post-constitutional period as "Hindu, occupation-
Bhikshuki" is perverse. It is further submitted that in view of the settled
legal position, the findings of the Committee regarding area restriction
and affinity test are unsustainable.
6. Per-contra, learned AGP would support the impugned
order. He would submit that the documents produced on record only
indicate caste as "Thakur", which is also found in upper caste. Hence, it
is imperative to consider result of affinity test. Petitioners' grand father's
cousin sister Lilabai Vishve's statement recorded by Vigilance Cell does
sga 3/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
not match with the traits of "Thakur" Caste and thus the petitioner
failed in the affinity test. In support of his contention, learned AGP
relied on judgment in the case of Dinesh Ramesh Thakur Vs. The State
of Maharashtra, in Writ Petition No.9627/2011 decided on 28.03.2012
and in the case of Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe Vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.2748/2000 decided on 18.01.2007.
The judgments cited by AGP of the year 2007 and 2012,
are of no help for the reason that thereafter the law regarding caste
validity has undergone a sea change.
7. The Committee rejected the tribe claims of the petitioners
mainly on the ground that the entry "Thakur" by itself does not
establish that the petitioners belong to the "Thakur, Scheduled Tribes".
As the said caste is also found in upper caste, hence caste entry as
"Thakur" can also be interpreted as upper caste "Thakur". Here it will
be apposite to refer the observations made in the case of Baburao S/o
Rajaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002(4) Mh.L.J.
310) :-
"32. The Scrutiny Committee has limited role to
investigate whether the claimant before it belongs to
"Thakur or Thakar" caste and on that basis it may take steps
as are mandated by law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Kum. Madhuri Patil's case, AIR 1995 SC 94. On adjudication
if the Committee records a finding in the affirmative, it has
to certify that the claimant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe
sga 4/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
and it cannot venture into any further inquiry into such a
claim. In the case at hand, the Committee recorded a
finding that the petitioner had claimed to belong to Thakar
Scheduled Tribe and the claim was subjected to verification
by the Committee which recorded a finding on adjudication
of this claim that the petitioner belonged to "Hindu Thakar"
caste which falls in the Other Backward Classes. The
petitioner has challenged this finding on the ground that
once he was found to be belonging to the "Thakar caste" it
was incompetent for the Committee to give any further
declaration regarding his social status and to hold that the
claimant belonged to "Hindu Thakar" caste-a non-tribal
group. If the Committee was satisfied that the claimant did
not belong to Thakar caste, it had the powers to give a
declaration accordingly. It certainly did not have the powers
to give a further declaration and that too contrary to the
petitioner's claim that he belonged to Hindu Thakar caste.
These submissions have considerable force and we agree
that once the Committee recorded a finding that the
claimant belongs to Thakar caste it had no jurisdiction to
give any further declaration and the only course available to
it in such cases was to validate the claimant's, social status
as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (entry no. 44). It is for
these reasons that the impugned order is contrary to law
and the Scrutiny Committee has fallen in serious error in
denying the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim. The said
order is, therefore, unsustainable and it requires to be
quashed and set-aside."
sga 5/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
In view of the above observations, once the Committee found that
the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" Caste, the Committee has
misdirected itself in holding that the said caste is also found in upper
caste and it can be interpreted as upper caste "Thakur", the said finding
recorded by the Committee is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
8. The Committee has observed that the petitioners' great
grand father was admitted to school in the year 1922 and during that
period, persons belonging to the "Thakur" community were backward
and lacked educational advancement. The Committee has erroneously
rejected the oldest entry of 1922 and has relied on the entry of the year
1960 and 1971 in school record of grand father's sister and father of the
petitioners as "Hindu, occupation Bhikshuki". The entry actually
reflects the religion and occupation not the caste. The Committee also
relied on the entries of school record of the year 1978, 1975 and 1991,
which are "Hindu" or "Hindu Thakur". The same reflects non-
application of mind. The pre-constitutional record has greater probative
value is a settled position of law as per the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner,
Tribal Development and Others, AIR 1995 SC 94 and Anand Vs.
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others ,
(2012)1 SCC 113.
sga 6/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
Therefore, the Committee has erred in ignoring the pre-
constitutional documents supporting the claim of the petitioners and
has further erred in relying on recent entries.
9. The Committee has rejected the petitioners' claim on the
ground of area restriction that the petitioners and their forefathers'
were not residing in the areas, which were scheduled for "Thakur
Scheduled Tribe". After issuance of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, the area restrictions are lifted.
In Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 (5)
All M.R. 975, it has been held that :-
"1. The short point raised by learned counsel for the
appellants in these appeals is that after 'The Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976' (Act
No.108 of 1976) was published in the Gazette on 20.09.1976,
the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra for the Thakur community has been deleted and
all members of Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma
Thakur and Ma Thakar community are treated to be Scheduled
Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of the
appellants on the ground that the relatives of the appellants
were not residents of the areas mentioned in the Presidential
Order, 1956 and further they were not able to give any details
of customs and traditions being observed by the said
community.
sga 7/9
14627.2019WP+(1)
2. In our considered opinion, that is wholly irrelevant. The
appellants have only to establish that they belong to the
community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second
Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976."
10. Therefore, the findings of the Committee in respect of area
restrictions cannot be sustained in view of the above judgment and the
Amendment Act of 1976.
11. Another ground on which the Committee has rejected the
petitioners' claim is that the petitioners' have failed to prove affinity
test. In view of the decisions in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra) and Mah. Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326, it is now well settled that affinity test
is not conclusive either way and it is not a litmus test.
12. For the above reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable
and hence it is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitions
deserve to be allowed. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER :
-
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
14627.2019WP+(1)
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by
Respondent No.2 - Committee is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioners.
(iii) The Respondent - Committee is directed to forthwith issue
validity certificates in favour of the petitioners as belonging to 'Thakur,
Scheduled Tribe'.
(iv) The petitioners are entitled for consequential service
benefits admissible to them.
(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(vi) No order as to costs.
[VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
