Bombay High Court
Krish S/O. Anand Kumbhare vs Union Of India, Ministry Of H.R. Devpt. ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: M.S.Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:12866-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5349 OF 2024
PETITIONER: Krish s/o Anand Kumbhare, Aged
about 18 years, Occ. Student, R/o
Umarkhed, Taluka Umarkhed, District
Yavatmal.
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Department
of Higher Education through its
Secretary, Off. At 122-C, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Scheduled Tribes Certificate
Verificaion Committee, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal, through its Member
Secretary.
3. Indian Institute of Science, Education
and Research, Pune, having office Dr.
Homi Bhabha Road, Pune-411008,
through its Principal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.K. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms G. V. Bhai, Adv. h/f Ms Ashwini Athalye, Adv.
for the respondents-Union of India.
Ms Kavita Bhondge, AGP for the respondents-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 07.10.2025.
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per - Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Though served,
none appears for the respondent No.3.
3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 20/08/2024 passed by the respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny
Committee, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner of
belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, even though his father is
declared to be Scheduled Tribe by the judgment of this Court dated
07/11/2023 in Writ Petition No.597 of 2021 (Anand Dattatraya
Kumbhare v. The Scheduled Tribes Certificates Verification
Committee, Amravati).
4. The Petitioner is a student and his proposal was
forwarded to the respondent No.2-Committee through the office of
the Principal, Vasantrao Naik Krushi Secondary and Higher School
Bitragaon Taluka Umarkhed, vide letter dated 29/03/2023. In
support of his caste claim, the petitioner submitted following
documents of pre-constitutional period:
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
Sr. Description of Document Caste/ Date
No. Tribe
1 School Extract of Shankar Ganpat Halbi 21/07/1942
2 Birth Record of son born to Halbi 23/05/1934
Ganpati Halbi namely Demaji
3 Birth Record of son born to Halbi 08/12/1925
Ganpati Halbi
4 Birth Record daughter born to Halbi 17/07/1945
Bhijaji Gangaram Halbi namely
Renuka
5 Birth Record of son born to Punjaji Halbi 28/11/1942
vald Ganpat Halbi
6 Birth Record of son born to Punjaji Halbi 02/10/1946
vald Ganpat Halbi namely
Pandurang
5. It is submitted by the petitioner that, the Scheduled Caste
Verification Committee Amravati, invalidating the caste claim of the
father of the petitioner vide its order dated 03/11/2020 by holding
that he does not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Against the said
order, the father of the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.597 of
2021 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 07/11/2023
validated the caste claim of the father of the petitioner of belonging
to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.
6. In the meanwhile, the Police Vigilance Cell conducted
inquiry and submitted its report to the respondent No.2-Committee,
whereby the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on
30/07/2024 by the respondent No.2-Committee. The petitioner
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
appeared before the Committee and submitted his detailed
explanation on 05/08/2024. After considering the vigilance report as
well as the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner, the
respondent No.2-Committee, by its order dated 20/08/2024,
invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner, which is the subject
matter of the present petition.
7. Our attention is drawn to the order passed by the same
Scrutiny Committee on 12/10/2021 in respect of Akshay Ashok
Sonkusare and others, wherein the Scrutiny Committee rejected
caste claims of Sonkusare on the basis of the documents of Punjaji
dated 13/07/1920 and 11/07/1924 mentioning the entry 'Koshti'.
Thus, it is contended that the Scrutiny Committee bent upon anyhow
to reject the claim of the petitioner by considering the same
documents of the persons not related to the petitioner to invalidate
the caste claim. On the basis of the same documents, the claim of the
petitioner came to be rejected.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the
following citations:
(i) Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7256/2024
(Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole v. The Schedule Tribe
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee) and one connected
matter.
(ii) Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.6500/2022
(Pratibha d/o Prabhakar Sonkusare and others v. The
Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee).
(iii) Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8261/2023 (Ashok
s/o Madhav Ingle and one another v. The Vice Chairman/
Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal).
9. The respondent No.2-Committee has relied on the
following documents procured by the Vigilance Cell during the course
of inquiry, which are adverse to the claim of the petitioner and
belonging to pre-constitutional period:
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 of husband
Koshti of the
cousin aunt
2 Birth A male child Great Koshti 02.08.1929
Extract namely Grandfather
Nagoba born of husband
to Govinda of the
Koshti cousin aunt
3 Birth A Male child Great Haalbi 22.03.1935
Extract namely Grandfather
Shama born
to Laxman
Haalbi
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
4 Birth A female Great Haalbi 23.08.1937
Extract child namely Grandfather
Shevanti
born to
Laxman
Narayan
Haalbi
5 Birth A male child Grandfather Koshti 16.05.1947
Extract namely of husband
Devrao born of the
to cousin aunt
Chandrabha
n Govind
Koshti
10. The respondent No.2-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. Further,
during the vigilance inquiry, adverse entries of 'Koshti' of the year
1919, 1929, 1947, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1970 so also
adverse entries of 'Haalbi' of the year 1935 and 1937 were also
procured by the Vigilance Cell. On the basis of these entries, the
learned AGP seeks rejection of the present petition.
11. Heard the submissions of both the parties at length and
examined the documents and authorities relied upon by their
respective counsel. For the sake of convenience, the family tree is
reproduced as under:
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
12. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee mainly rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the
ground that his relatives i.e. real uncle of the petitioner, cousin sisters
namely Sima Kumbhare, Nita Kumbhare, Samiksha Kumbhare,
Tanushri Kumbhare obtained caste certificates of SBC and non-
creamy layer certificate, therefore, non-mentioning these facts is the
act of suppression as per the Committee. The petitioner placed on
record as many as seven documents, which are prior to 1950. The
oldest document is of 1925. In the documents, which are procured
by the Vigilance Cell, the oldest entry is of 1920. The entries of 1920,
1924 and 1934 all are pertaining to one Punjaji. These documents
were considered by the Committee for invalidating the caste claim of
one Akshay Sonkusare and his family member. It was pointed out that
this Punjaji is not in relation with the family of the petitioner. In fact,
Punjaji is in the family tree of the petitioner born on 08/12/1925,
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
therefore, the entry of 1920 a male child born to Punjaji is impossible
and said Punjaji is not at all in relation to the petitioner. Similar
entries of 11/07/1924, 20/09/1934 in respect of Punjaji are not in
relation with the petitioner.
13. We have perused the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee in the case of Akshay Sonkusare, wherein the same
documents were used to reject the claim of Akshay Sonkusare. For
this reason only the Members of the Scrutiny Committee were
directed to remain present and explain why these documents were
used earlier in respect of some other person are again used in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner claiming that he is in relation
with the petitioner by order dated 23/09/2025. As unconditional
apology submitted by the Members of the Committee to this Court,
the same was accepted, however, in the order dated 07/10/2025, this
Court recorded its dissatisfaction with the approach of the Committee
Members to justify their mistake. Thus, we are of the considered
view that the Committee failed to verify the documents on which the
Committee is relying, are pertaining to the persons related to the
petitioner or not.
14. The family tree produced by the petitioner along with
reply/explanation. From this family tree, it would appear that
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
Punjaji born to Ganpati Halbi on 08/12/2025 and Dattatraya Halbi
born to Ganpati on 03/01/1928 and the third son Demaji Halbi born
to Ganpati on 23/05/1934. There is no reason to disbelieve those
documents and to rely on the documents of persons, which are not in
relation with the petitioner. The entry of 'Koshti' in the document of
Punjaji is not of a person in relation to the family of the petitioner. It
can also be seen that the documents used for invalidating the caste of
Akshay Sonkusare and others of 1920, 1924 and 1934 are of one
Punjaji, who is not at all in relation with the petitioner. Even from the
date of birth of Punjaji it is clear that the Committee relied on the
document just to invalidate the claim. Thus, if these documents of
Punjaji procured by the Vigilance Cell are discarded, the documents
of 1925 produced by the petitioner is the oldest document, wherein
caste is shown as "Halbi". Similarly, in the documents of 1928 and
1934 and the old documents showing caste "Halbi". The seven
documents, the list of which is given in para-2, are the documents
prior to 1950 and they have great probative value. This aspect is
duly disclosed in the judgment in Writ Petition No.597 of 2021,
Anand Dattatraya Kumbhare (supra) and held that the documents
with entry Koshti are subsequent to the old documents of 1925,
1928, 1934, 1942 and 1945 by relying on the judgment of Priya
Pramod Gajbe v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 909,
Judgment 10 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
it is held that pre-constitutional documents have to be given due
weightage. The subsequent documents showing entry Koshti is
insignificant. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee deliberately used the documents of the persons, who are
not in relation to the petitioner, only to reject claim of the petitioner.
15. It is beneficial to mention that this Court in Amruta
Arvind Dadmal v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, 2018 DGLS (Bom.) 751 observed as under: (Page 33)
"(i) The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi judicial body
and the members of it are to be held in high esteem.
They are supposed to be fair, impartial, unbiased and
sensitive to the claims of scrutiny and verification of
the caste or tribe, as the entire career of the persons in
the employment or the students in the education from
the backward class category for concessions and
benefits depends. The duty of the committee is to see
that the genuine and bona fide claimants are not
deprived of their claims and the bogus claimants are
eliminated. [Para 8]
(ii) The procedure for grant of validity certificate is
governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the
Rules framed thereunder. The Committee is expected
to uniformly follow the procedure and record the
findings on appreciation of evidence. All the
documents produced by the claimants and secured
Judgment 11 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
through the Police Vigilance Cell are required to be
considered as a matter of rule to record the findings
one way or the other. The claims are required to be
decided as far as possible within a period stipulated
period, giving preference to the claims of the students
securing admissions in Educational Institutions against
the seats meant for the candidates belonging to the
reserved category. [Para 9]
(ii) Normally, a quasi judicial authority is not supposed to
be a contesting party to any litigation and if the orders
are wrong or mistakes are committed, the same shall
be corrected, without any occasion to pass any
strictures. However, over the years, we have come
across hundreds of cases challenging the orders of the
Scrutiny Committee, and we are pained to note the
reprehensible conduct of the members of the
committee and the entire establishment. The orders
are passed in a mechanical manner showing scant
respect to the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court
or the High Court. The attitude of the committee is
very hostile and biased towards the claimants. There is
no sensitivity to the problems. In many reported and
unreported judgments of this Court, strictures were
passed against the members of the Committee and at
times, notices of contempt were issued, and accepting
apology, the proceedings were dropped. Many times,
the members of the Committee are directed to pay the
costs, even from their personal pocket, but we fail to
notice any change in the approach of the Scrutiny
Committee. [Para 10]
(iv) We may point out few instances of reprehensible
conduct of the members of the Committee and the
establishment as under:
(1) ................
Judgment 12 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
*(8) Several tactics are adopted to prolong the
adjudication and compel the claimants to institute
several proceedings, including those for contempt,
and incur unnecessary expenditure.
*(9) The ratio of the decisions of this Court and of the
Apex Court is invariably followed in breach.
*(10)If the claim of the father is validated, the claim of
the son is invalidated, without any finding as to
any fraud played by the father in obtaining the
validity certificate.
(11) Every effort is made by the Committee to see that
the claimants get monetarily and mentally
exhausted in litigation.
(12) There can be innumerable examples where
different Benches of this Court have called the
members of the committee to appear in person to
furnish an explanation or imposing the costs.
[Para 16]"
In view of the above observations, the Committee
expected to collect the necessary information through its Vigilance
Cell, as held in Tatya Vishnu Ranshur v. State of Maharashtra, 2019
DGLS (Bom. 1801, as under:
"(ii) It is expected to conduct a unbiased and unprejudiced
inquiry on the touchstone of application of judicious
mind and by keeping in mind the Claimant who is
entitled to the benefits flowing from being belonging
to a particular tribe, which is recognised as a
Scheduled Tribe and not to examine his claim only
with a preconceived notion that there are spurious
Claimant, in an attempt to secure the benefit flowing
Judgment 13 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
from Constitutional mandate make false claims before
the Committee."
16. There are various judgments from which many guidelines
were issued time to time by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex
Court. We wish to summarize those guidelines to be kept in mind by
all Scrutiny Committee members while deciding the caste claims of
the applicants, as under:
(Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v
State of Maharshtra [2023(2) Mh.L.J 785])
• Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim.
• Only when Scrutiny Committee after holding an inquiry is not
satisfied with material produced by applicant, case can be
referred to Vigilance Cell.
• If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine
documents of pre-Constitution period showing that he belongs
to a tribal community, in such case a reference to Vigilance
Cell is not warranted at all.
• Applicant must establish his precise and exact relationship
with person to whom validity certificate has been granted.
(State of Maharashtra v Mana Adim Jamat Mandal [(2006) 4
SCC 98])
• Each of the tribe specified in Entry 18 must be deemed to be a
separate tribe and not a sub-tribe of 'Gond'.
• Mana is a separate schedule tribe.
Judgment 14 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
(Sayanna v State of Maharashtra [(2009) 10 SCC 268])
• Subsequent entries in documents does not by itself indicate
interpolation of school records.
(Apoorva Nichale Vs D. C. C. S. COMMITTEE [2010(6)
Mh.L.J.])
• If a blood relative holds a valid caste certificate, the same
status must be granted to the applicant. Exception: Only if the
earlier validity was obtained by fraud.
• A different view on identical facts is impermissible.
• Ensures consistency and fairness in caste verification within
the same family.
[Sau. Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, 2012 (Writ Petition nos. 2571/2001,2260/2007
&4225/2001 decided on 4th October, 2012)]
• Pre-Constitution documents showing caste as Halbi have high
probative value.
• Some of the entries of "Koshti" were due to weaving
occupation, not different caste identities. Fewer late entries of
'Koshti' cannot be override the old consistent entries of
"Halbi".
• RV Russell in his book The Tribes and Castes of Central
Province of India , 1916 noted that the Halba Tribe were once
a part of The Maratha and Gond Armies, eventually turned to
weaving for their livelihood.
Judgment 15 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
• Over the period of time, many weaving Halbas in the areas like
Bhandara and Berar came to be locally perceived as a part of
Koshti community due to their similar traditional occupations,
despite their unchanged Halba lineage.
• In Sau. Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, 2012 the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court
referred to R V Russell's writings and reiterated that many
Halbis from regions such as Ellichpur and Anjangaon Surji
traditionally worked as weavers.
• The Court observed and reasoned that references to 'Koshti' in
old records likely described a person's profession rather than
the shift in caste, reinforcing that the Halba identity continued
despite such documentary variations.
(Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC
241])
• Judicial Magistrate has no authority to issue caste certificates
-- such certificates are void.
• Pre-Independence records have high probative value in
determining caste status.
• Caste association certificates carry no evidentiary value.
• Field inquiry and show-cause notice with fair hearing are
mandatory.
• Verification must be completed expeditiously, preferably within
two months.
Judgment 16 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
• The Scrutiny Committee's decision is final, subject only to
judicial review under Article 226.
(Anand versus Committee for Scrutiny and verification of tribe
claims and others [(2012) 1 SCC 113])
• Affinity test is relevant and germane in accordance with
scheme of act and rules for the determination of social status
of claimant.
• Genuineness of caste claim to be looked in broader perspective
rather than mere certification of document.
• Pre-independence documents carry greater probative value
and must be accorded due weight in the determination of caste
validity.
• Pre-Independence records = strongest proof of caste.
• Affinity test must be applied cautiously due to migration &
modernization altering traits.
• Present-day mismatch in customs cannot defeat a genuine
caste claim.
• Affinity test is for corroboration, not for independent rejection
of claims.
(Saurav kumar Katole Vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee and others [WP 7256 of 2024 with WP 7257 of
2024 decided on 07.08.2025])
• 'Mangesh Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and
others (Writ Petition No.14111/2021)': Validity binds only
Judgment 17 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
claimant, not relatives, for the simple reason that they are not
party to such adjudication.
• Even if some relatives held SBC certificates. The applicant can
establish his claim of other caste.
(Javedkha Musakhan Pathan v. Scrutiny Committee, Writ
Petition No.7419/2024 )
• Old/worn-out documents cannot be discarded merely due to
deterioration; the Committee must verify them.
• Certified copies of public records must be considered, even if
the original register is damaged.
• If any document appears doubtful, it must be referred to a
handwriting/forensic expert rather than to reject outrightly.
• Public documents carry a statutory presumption of correctness,
which can be rebutted only by strong contrary evidence. (See
Sec.79 of the Indian Evidence Act)
• Mechanical or unreasoned rejection of such documents is
arbitrary and unsustainable.
(Amey Mahendrasing Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, Writ
Petition No.9322/2018).
• If applicant is first-generation educated, lack of documents
shouldn't defeat the claim.
• If documents appear doubtful → test by oral evidence, not
direct rejection.
Judgment 18 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
17. We expect that the Caste Scrutiny Committees while
deciding the caste claims would follow the principles laid down by
this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its true spirit. We
direct Registry to send the copy of this judgment to all Scrutiny
Committees within the jurisdiction of this Court.
18. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Caste
Scrutiny Committee made deliberate attempt to invalidate the caste
claim of the petitioner, specifically when there is a judgment of this
Court in the matter of Writ Petition No.597 of 2021 filed by the father
of the petitioner vide judgment dated 07/11/2023, this Court
validated the caste claim of the father of the petitioner of Halba
Scheduled Tribe. The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
is perverse, erroneous and arbitrary. As such, it is liable to be quashed
and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order.
19. The writ petition is allowed.
20. The impugned order dated 20/08/1924, passed by the
respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in Case No.11/510/Edu/
102023/47033 is hereby quashed and set aside.
21. It is held and declared that the petitioner has established
that he belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.2-
Judgment 19 J-WP No.5349.2024.odt
Scrutiny Committee is hereby directed to issue caste validity
certificate to the petitioner as he belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe
within a period of two weeks.
22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/11/2025 17:24:13
