Bombay High Court
Dayaram S/O Tryambak Donge vs The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:12214-DB
J-WP-7383-23 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7383 OF 2023
Dayaram S/o Tryambak Donge
Aged about 64 yrs, Occ. Retired,
R/o At-Post-Nimgaon,
Tah. Nandura, Distt. Buldhana ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati ... Respondent
Ms Himani Kavi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.
CORAM : SMT M. S. JAWALKAR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 23rd September, 2025
JUDMGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17th November, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
Heard Ms Himani Kavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri A. V. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 04/07/2023 passed by the respondent-
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for
short, the Committee) thereby invalidating the caste-claim of the
petitioner towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
3. The brief facts which are undisputed leading to the present
petition are as follows.
The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe which is included as Scheduled Tribe at Sr.No.44 in the
Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. The petitioner in order
to substantiate his claim has placed on record Form-C Scheduled Tribe
Certificate dated 02/01/2018 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Malkapur which is at record page 42, Annexure-4. The petitioner
had joined in Class-IV category as 'Peon' with the office of Government
Milk Scheme, Nandura. The employer of the petitioner forwarded the
caste-claim of the petitioner for verification to the respondent-
Committee on 21/11/2017. The reference letter issued by the
Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Nandura substantiating the
aforesaid fact is at record page 35, Annexure-1.
4. The petitioner in support of his claim towards 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe has relied upon as much as 19 documents out of
which three documents were pre-constitutional pertaining to his
grandfather and uncle of the period 1918 to 1933 showing the caste
entry as 'Thakur'.
5. The respondent-Committee referred the caste-claim of the
petitioner to the police vigilance cell which conducted an enquiry
regarding the home, school and other allied enquiry pertaining to the
petitioner. The police vigilance cell submitted the vigilance cell report
to the respondent-Committee on 16/03/2023 which is placed on
record at page 53, Annexure-10. The police vigilance Cell has obtained
certain pre-constitutional documents pertaining to the petitioner
showing caste as 'Bhat Thakur' and 'Marathe' so also the police
vigilance cell has opined that the petitioner has failed to prove his
affinity towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
6. In view of the adverse vigilance cell report, the respondent-
Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 27/03/2023.
In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has
submitted his explanation on 16/05/2023 which is at record page 66,
Annexure-11. The petitioner in reply has specifically denied his
relationship with the individuals pertaining to whom contra entries
were obtained by the respondent Committee. However, the
respondent Committee has invalidated the caste-claim of the petitioner
towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe vide order dated 04/07/2023 which
is impugned before this Court.
7. We have heard Ms Himani Kavi, learned counsel for the
petitioner. She contends that the petitioner had submitted at least
three pre-constitutional documents pertaining to the years 1918, 1927
and 1933 which were erroneously rejected by the respondent-
Committee. The learned counsel also further argued that the
respondent-Committee was not at all justified in rejecting the caste-
claim of the petitioner on the basis of affinity test and area restrictions
as the aforesaid issue has been held in favour of the petitioner by the
Honourable Apex Court. The learned counsel at the outset submitted
that the respondent-Committee was not justified in relying upon the
contra entries of the individuals who were not at all related to the
petitioner particularly when relationship with those individuals has
been specifically denied by the petitioner.
On the contrary, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.
V. Palshikar supported the impugned order dated 04/07/2023 passed
by the respondent Committee. He contended that the vigilance cell
tried to verify the pre-constitutional document dated 09/07/1918
pertaining to the grandfather of the petitioner. However, said
document could not be verified as the relevant record was in
dilapidated condition and hence aforesaid document has not been
considered. Shri Palshikar further invited our attention to the police
vigilance cell report to show that that there are at least three pre-
constitutional documents pertaining to the years 1932 and 1933
showing caste entry of 'Bhat Thakur' and 'Marathe' in respect of
relatives of the petitioner. He also pointed out the vigilance cell report
wherein the police vigilance cell has held that the petitioner has failed
to prove affinity towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
In view of above, Shri Palshikar submitted that the impugned
order passed by the respondent-Committee thereby invalidating the
caste-claim of the petitioner is justified and hence the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed by the Court.
8. In the light of above factual position and the arguments
rendered by the respective counsel, we have perused the documents
and original record produced by the respondent-Committee. The
petitioner in order to substantiate his caste-claim towards 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe has placed on record the pre-constitutional
documents, however before referring to those documents, it would be
fruitful to point the genealogical tree of the petitioner as prepared by
the police vigilance cell on 11/01/2022 which is at record page 62.
i
.. . •·:.
i
.. . •·:.
. :
. : .
I
. \
~. l
.
I
. \
~. l
.,.
• • '!' i
\
. .
·: •. .. ·. . . • .,.
• • '!' i
\
I
!,
. .
·: •. .. ·. . . •
I
·•.~,, !,
.-a -rri~i\.; ';T·"J~i'.; :i:~ ..
- , n H ~ l }~1~ ._,,._ . i
. .
. tfnfi--~- ~~a,j;~~
•. •t,
.-a
ST~~f :cr
-rri~i\.; ';T·"J~i'.;
-,nH~l
.~flHf.~f
e{ijl!f) ~~-~-q-?.{'
} ~ 1 ~ ._,,._
~~a,j;~~
tfnfi--~-·trfi:tcTT
.
·•.~,,
:i:~
i
•.
..
•t,
. .
,:at~f~~)
ST~~f :cr
e{ijl!f) ~~-~-q-?.{'
:, . •
,.I.
• t_' I _..J,
.
..... •
~flHf.~f ·trfi:tcTT ,:at~f~~)
:, . •
,.I.
• t_' I _..J,
.
..... •
9. Perusal of the genealogical tree of the petitioner would reveal
that the petitioner was born to Tryambak (father) who was born to
Pandu (grandfather) who was the son of Bhonaji (great grandfather).
The petitioner has relied upon the birth extract of one son born to
Pandu s/o Bhonaji on 09/07/1918 wherein caste is recorded as
'Thakur'. The said document is at record page 43, Annexure-5. The
petitioner has further relied upon school leaving certificate dated
11/12/1928 in respect of Dattu, son of Pandu wherein caste is
recorded as 'Thakur'. It is at record page 44, Annexure-6. The
petitioner has also relied upon birth extract of one male child born to
Pandu on 01/11/1933 wherein caste is recorded as 'Thakur. It is at
record page 45 (Annexure-7). It is worth to mention here that all the
aforesaid entries are pre-constitutional and have higher degree of
probative value. In recent judgment dated 12/08/2025, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. ... of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.27410 of 2024 (Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others) has held in para 8 thus :
" 8. It can thus, be seen that this court held that while dealing with
documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-
independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of
probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared
to post-independence documents. Insofar as the applicability of the
affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a cautious
approach has to be adopted. It has been observed that a few
decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural
development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as
a determinative factor. However, with the migrations,
modernisation and contact with other communities, these
communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not
essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It
is, therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded as a
litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled
Tribe. It has been held that merely because the applicant does not
match the tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits,
deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method
of burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into
consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the Scheduled
Tribe."
10. Thus, these pre-constitutional documents should have been
verified by the respondent-Committee with a greater sense of
responsibility and should not have been rejected in casual manner as is
done in the present case. The respondent-Committee has not at all
dealt with the documents dated 11/12/1918 and 01/11/1933. It
rejected document dated 07/09/1918 pertaining to the grandfather of
the petitioner on the ground that when police vigilance cell tried to
verify the said document, Tahsil office informed them that the record is
in dilapidated condition and hence have rejected the aforesaid
document. The rejection by the respondent-Committee of a pre-
constitutional documents on this ground is not at all justified. The
respondent-Committee has not at all given a finding that the aforesaid
document is either forged or fabricated and hence it has rejected the
same. In that view of matter, we hold that the Committee has not
assessed the pre-constitutional document available on record in totality
and omitted to consider and appreciate the important documents
having higher degree of probative value and as such invalidation of the
caste-claim by virtue of the impugned order is not at all justified and
hence deserves to be set aside by this Court.
11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-Committee has heavily relied upon the contra entries
procured by the police vigilance cell in vigilance cell enquiry which are
reproduced in para 5 of the impugned order. So far as the document
at Sr.No.1 is concerned, it is the death entry dated 06/01/1932 of
Shriram, son of Pandu who is alleged to be the cousin grandfather of
the petitioner where the caste is referred as 'Bhat Thakur'. The
genealogical tree of the petitioner prepared by the police vigilance cell
shows that Pandu had two sons viz. Dattu and Trymbak and Shriram is
not the son of Pandu. Therefore, the aforesaid document pertaining
to Shriram, son of Pandu is not pertaining to the paternal relative of
the petitioner and his relationship is clearly denied by the petitioner.
Similar is the case with document at Sr. No.3 which is the birth extract
of one child viz. Janardan born on 22/01/1933 to Pandhari, son of
Pandu. According to the police vigilance cell, the said document
pertains to the paternal uncle of the petitioner and the caste therein is
recorded as 'Marathe'. Again the said document is contradictory to the
genealogical tree prepared by the police vigilance cell. Pandu had only
two sons viz. Dattu and Tryambak and not Pandhari which is shown as
the uncle of the petitioner and thus the aforesaid document is also not
pertaining to the paternal relative of the petitioner and hence the same
is rejected by this Court.
So far as document at Sr. Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, they are
pertaining to the great grandmother and grandmother respectively of
the petitioner wherein caste is recorded as 'Marathe'. The respondent-
Committee was not at all justified in relying upon caste entry of wife of
grandfather and great grandfather of the petitioner and hence the
aforesaid documents at Sr.Nos.2 and 4 also deserve to be rejected by
this Court.
Last document at Sr.No.5 pertains to year 1996 which is much
beyond the cut-off date of 1950 and hence is rejected by this Court on
this ground alone.
12. In view of above, we hold that the respondent-Committee was
not at all justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner relying upon
such contra entries which are not at all related to the petitioner. The
petitioner has specifically denied relationship with aforesaid
individuals in his reply dated 15/05/2023 which is at record page 66,
Annexure-11. However, the respondent-Committee neither considered
the aforesaid reply nor proved relationship of the aforesaid individuals
with the petitioner in the context of the genealogical tree prepared by
the police vigilance cell of the respondent-Committee.
13. The last limb of argument submitted by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader Shri Palshikar in support of the impugned order is
that the petitioner has failed to prove his affinity towards 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe. The respondent-Committee has rejected the pre-
constitutional documents in favour of the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner has failed to prove affinity towards 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe. However, the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of
the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors. 2023 (2) MHLJ 785 where the Honourable Apex Court has
held that affinity test cannot be termed as litmus test for
determination of caste-claim. The Honourable Apex Court further
observed that pre-constitutional documents are having more probative
value and that the affinity test is not an essential part of determination
process of the caste/tribe claims. Thus, in our considered opinion, the
respondent-Committee was not at all justified in ignoring the several
pre-constitutional documents substantiating the caste-claim of the
petitioner on the ground that the affinity test could not be proved.
14. The perusal of the impugned order would also reveal that the
respondent-Committee has rejected the caste-claim of the petitioner on
the ground of area restriction. However, the aforesaid issue is already
answered in favour of the petitioner by the Honourable Apex Court in
the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2018
(5) ALL MR 975 (SCC).
15. Thus, the respondent-Committee has failed to verify the caste-
claim of the petitioner on the touchstone of the law laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India. Hence for the aforesaid reasons,
we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
04/07/2023 passed by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati invalidating the caste-claim
of the petitioner towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe is unsustainable in
the eyes of law and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Therefore we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 04/07/2023 passed by the respondent-
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
invalidating the caste-claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe category.
(iv) The respondent-Committee is directed to issue the validity
certificate to the petitioner towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
(v) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Smt M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/11/2025 17:57:59
