Sneha D/O Ravindra Katole (Minor) Thr. ... vs The Scheduled Tribe Caster Certificate ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7596 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sneha D/O Ravindra Katole (Minor) Thr. ... vs The Scheduled Tribe Caster Certificate ... on 17 November, 2025

Author: M. S. Jawalkar

Bench: M. S. Jawalkar

2025:BHC-NAG:12236-DB

                Judgment                                 1                        J-WP No.3461.2024.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2024

                        Sneha D/o Ravindra Katole,
                        Aged about 17 years, Occ. Student,
                        through its Natural Guardian of father
                        Shri Ravindra S/o Ukanda Katole,
                        Aged about 51 years, Occ. Service,
                        R/o. at post Dhanki,
                        Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.                            .... PETITIONER

                                                    // VERSUS //

                1)      The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
                        Scrutiny Committee,
                        Through its Member-Secretary,
                        Yavatmal.

                2)      The Principal,
                        Bansilal Ramnath Agarawal Charitable
                        Trust's Vishwakarma Institute of
                        Technology, Bibwewadi, Pune.         .... RESPONDENTS
                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
                         Ms. K. H. Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for
                         Respondent No.1.
                         Mr. D. U. Thakare, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM :          MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
                                                   RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

                     DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT                              : 07.10.2025
                     DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT                            : 17.11.2025

                JUDGMENT :

(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.) Judgment 2 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by

consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

2. The Petitioner by this petition is challenging the

order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1 -

Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal thereby

invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the 'Halbi'

Scheduled Tribe mentioned at Sr. No. 19 of the Constitution

(Schedule Tribe) Order, 1950, and further confiscating and

cancelling the Caste Certificate issued to the Petitioner by the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed on 06.12.2022.

3. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a student and has

taken admission in B.E Degree Course in Computer Engineering

through CAP round in Respondent No. 2 College on 06.08.2023.

The proposal of the Petitioner was forwarded to the Respondent

No.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee through the office of Principal,

Vasantrao Naik Krushi College of Arts and Commerce, Higher

Secondary College vide letter dated 30.11.2022. In support of Judgment 3 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

her caste claim, the Petitioner submitted following documents of

Pre-constitutional period:

Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date No. Tribe

1 Birth Record of son born to Great Great Halbi 1946 Grandfather of Petitioner (Laxman Vald Narayan) namely Ukanda 2 Birth Record of son born to Great Great Halbi 22.03.1935 Grandfather of Petitioner (Laxman Vald Narayan) namely Shama 3 Birth Record of female child born to Halbi 23.08.1937 Great Great Grandfather of Petitioner (Laxman Vald Narayan) namely Shewanti 4 Birth Record of son born to Great Great Halbi 08.07.1951 Grandfather of Petitioner (Laxman Vald Narayan) namely Narayan

4. It is further submitted that since the caste claim of

the Petitioner had not been decided by the Respondent No. 1

Caste Scrutiny Committee within a reasonable period, the

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 5204/2023 before this Court

seeking directions to Respondent No. 1 Committee to decide the

caste claim of the Petitioner in time bound manner and protect

the admission of the Petitioner. This Court, vide its order dated

17.08.2023, directed the Respondent No. 2 College that the

admission of the Petitioner shall not be cancelled for want of

validity certificate until further orders.

Judgment 4 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

5. In the meanwhile, the Police Vigilance Cell conducted

an inquiry and submitted its report to the Respondent No. 1

Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the Petitioner was issued a

show cause notice on 24.08.2023 by the Respondent No. 1 Caste

Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner appeared before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee and submitted his detailed explanation on

13.09.2023. After considering the vigilance report as well as the

documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner, the Respondent

No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 31.10.2023,

invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner, which is the subject

matter of the present petition.

6. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the

following Citations:

(i) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113;

(ii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415 and.

7. As against this, the Respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny

Committee has relied on the following documents procured by Judgment 5 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

the Vigilance Cell in its inquiry belonging to pre-constitutional

period, which are adverse to the claim of the Petitioner :

Sr. Document Name Relationship Caste Date No. Type with the petitioner 1 Birth A male child Great Koshti 17.02.1919 Extract born to Grandfather Govinda Koshti of husband of the cousin aunt 2 Birth A male child Great Koshti 02.08.1929 Extract namely Grandfather Nagoba born of husband of to Govinda the cousin Koshti aunt 3 Birth A Male child Great Halbi 22.03.1935 Extract namely Shama Grandfather born to Laxman Halbi 4 Birth A female child Great Halbi 23.08.1937 Extract namely Grandfather Shevanti born to Laxman Narayan Haalbi 5 Birth A male child Grandfather Koshti 16.05.1947 Extract namely Devrao of husband of born to the cousin Chandrabhan aunt Govind Koshti

8. The Respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee

contended that the oldest documents submitted by the Petitioner

were single entry documents and no corroborative documents

were either submitted by the Petitioner or procured by the

Vigilance Cell in its inquiry. It is further contended that during Judgment 6 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

the vigilance inquiry, adverse entry of 'Koshti' of the year 1919,

1929, 1947, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1970 so also

adverse entry of 'Halbi' of the year 1935 and 1937 were also

procured by the Vigilance Cell. It is further contended that the

Caste Scrutiny Committee evaluated the documentary evidence

submitted by the Petitioner and procured by the Vigilance Cell

and after granting opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, came

to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate

that she belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe and rightly

invalidated the claim of the Petitioner.

9. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record

of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of Assistant

Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by

the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

10. For the sake of convenience, family tree is

reproduced as under :

Judgment 7 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

1. It needs to be noted here that in Writ Petition No.

7256/2024, Sauravkumar Sunilkumar Katole, who is cousin

brother of the Petitioner got a validity certificate. Similarly in

Writ Petition No.7257/2024, Sunilkumar Madhukar Katole,

uncle of the Petitioner got the validity certificate that they

belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. In another Writ Petition

No.5098/2019, one Somshekhar, who is real brother of

Sauravkumar Sunilkumar Katole also granted the validity

certificate as he belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Thus, all the

documents were considered by this Court and come to the Judgment 8 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

conclusion that Sauravkuar, Sunilkumar as well as Somshekhar

are the persons belonging to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe. Thus,

documents produced by the Petitioner are also considered in the

said writ petitions. The Vigilance Cell procured some documents

showing entry as "Koshti", however, the name of the person is

not appearing in the family tree.

12. So far as entry of Govinda Koshti of 1919 is

concerned, there is no other details in the said document and

the place of residence is shown as Dabhadi, whereas forefathers

of the Petitioners are of Mahagaon or Fulsawangi. Thus, for

want of other details, entry of 1919 showing Govinda as 'Koshti'

cannot be relied upon, specifically when their place of residence

is shown as Dabhadi. So far as second document of 1929 is

concerned, there is no son by name Nagoba to the Govinda. It

appears that Govinda Koshti is some other person and not

related to the Petitioner. On perusal of the order passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee, it appears that Sunilkumar and

Sauravkumar are blood relatives of the Petitioner. The Family

Tree is produced at page No.77 of the petition and the Judgment Judgment 9 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

of Caste Scrutiny Committee. On the said family tree, there are

signatures of Ganpatrao Katole and Ukanda Laxman Katole. As

such, this family tree can be taken into consideration. In view of

the Judgment in Writ Petition No.7256/2024, Sauravkumar

Katole has granted with validity certificate as he belonging to

'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe by this Court. Therefore, the relevant

paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the said judgment are reproduced

as under :

"20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under in paragraph No. 38 as under:

"38. 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 Judgment 10 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

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.

21. It is one of the contention that the caste certificate was invalidated in respect of uncle of the petitioner i.e. Dhananjay Katole. However, he has not challenged the same. Therefore, it has attained finality."

13. It would be beneficial to refer the Judgment in

Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J.,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

"9. ...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 Judgment 11 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

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 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."

14. It would be also beneficial to refer the Judgment in

Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors., reported in 2013(1)

Mh.L.J. 180, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

"10. Insofar as the reliance on some of the entries pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side showing caste to be 'Koshti' on which Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel relies, are concerned, perusal of the said document would reveal that though the caste of the said person is written as Koshti, the profession is also shown as weaving. As can be seen from the Gazetteer of Amravati District, that Halbi's in erstwhile Ellichpur and Anjangaon Surji in Daryapur Taluq in Amravati District were also engaged in the profession of weaving. It is common knowledge that persons engaged in the profession of weaving were called as "Koshti". A possibility cannot be ruled out that due to this, said entries might have recorded. It is also relevant to refer to some portion from the authority of R.V. Russell on Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, published in 1916, wherein while dealing with the Halba Tribe, it has been stated that "Some of these soldiers may have migrated west and taken service under the Gond Judgment 12 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

Kings of Chanda, and their descendants may now be represented by the Bhandara Zamindars, who, however, if this theory be correct, have entirely forgotten their origin. Others took up weaving and have become amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar."

15. Thus, it can be seen that the Petitioner placed on

record the old documents showing his paternal relatives as

'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe of the year 1935, 1937, 1946 and 1951.

So far as documents procured by the Vigilance Cell, these two

entries of 1935 and 1937 are duly verified. As discussed above,

the document of 1919 is not established that it pertains to the

members of family of the Petitioner. Second document of 1929

also cannot be relied as it is mentioned that one son namely

Nagoba born to Govinda Koshti, however, there is no son

Nagoba to Govinda. It appears that the father of the Petitioner

Ravindra Ukanda Katole made a statement while giving family

tree that Shama born to Laxman Halbi is expired before

marriage. Thus, the entry of 1935 which is procured by the

Vigilance Cell showing caste 'Halbi' in respect of Shama born to

Laxman Halbi. Thus, there is one entry of Koshti which appears

to be in relation to the Petitioner in 1947 otherwise the other Judgment 13 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

entries of 1935, 1937, 1946 and 1951 are of 'Halbi'. Moreover,

there are already validity certificates are issued in favour of

Sauravkumar Sunilkumar Katole, who is cousin brother of the

Petitioner and Sunilkumar Madhukar Katole, uncle of the

Petitioner and one Somshekhar, who is real brother of the

Sauravkumar, as they belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe.

16. In view of the citation referred in Judgment, we are

of the considered opinion that the Petitioner have duly

established that she belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe and order

passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is passed without

verifying the actual facts and without making any statement

how the persons against whom the 'Koshti' is recorded are in

relation with the Petitioner. If the family tree is admitted as

given by the father of the Petitioner, there is no scope to add any

other person, who has no nexus with the Petitioner.

17. As such, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee is erroneous, perverse and liable to be set aside.

Judgment 14 J-WP No.3461.2024.odt

The Petitioner duly established that she belongs to 'Halbi',

Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

                                        (i)     The Writ Petition is allowed.

                                        (ii)    The impugned order dated 31.10.2023, passed by the

Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in case No. 11/510/Edu/012023/4359, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that she belongs to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.

(iv) The Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner - Sneha D/o Ravindra Katole within a period of three weeks.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

as to costs.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Kirtak

Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/11/2025 18:57:07