Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Narayan Donge vs S. T. Caste Certi. Scrutiny Committee, ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:10339-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2023
Gajanan S/o Narayan Donge,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o. Patwari Colony, Adsana Road,
Shegaon, District Buldhana. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Chaprashipura,
Old by pass, Amravati through
its Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner.
2) Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. M. Golhar, Advocate holding for Mr. A. P. Kalmegh,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. S. Jachak, Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondent No.1.
Mrs. M. P. Munshi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 23.09.2025
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 07.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Judgment 2 J-WP No.644.2023.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 30/12/2022, passed by the Respondent No.1
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
Division, Amravati (for short the "Scrutiny Committee"), thereby
invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the "Thakur"
Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled
Tribes in Constitutional (S.T.) Order 1950.
3. The contention of the Petitioner is that on the basis of
the Caste Certificate issued to the Petitioner on 21/07/1987 by
the Executive Magistrate, Shegaon, the Petitioner was appointed
on the post of 'Peon' in the Respondent No. 2 - Zilla Parishad,
Buldhana vide order dated 12/07/1989 under the Scheduled
Tribe Category. Initially, the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner was
forwarded for verification to the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny
Committee through his employer - Respondent No.2 in the year
2004 and again on the basis of caste certificate issued on
Judgment 3 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
07/07/2007 in new format, the proposal for verification of Tribe
Claim was forwarded on 26/07/2013.
4. It is further contended that the Petitioner along with
proposal submitted documents related to his father and
grandfather, which includes document of prior to 1950 wherein
entry in regard to Caste "Thakur" is clearly mentioned. The
Petitioner has submitted following documents in support of his
Tribe Claim:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Birth Extract of Pandu Bhonaji Thakur Thakur 17.09.1918
(Grandfather)
2 Birth Extract of Narayan Pandu Thakur Thakur 03.03.1965
(Father)
3 Copy of Service Book of Gajanan Thakur 15.08.1964
Narayan Donge
4 Transfer Certificate of Gajanan Narayan Thakur 05.07.1971
Donge
5 Entry Register of Gajanan Narayan Donge Thakur 10.07.1970
5. The Petitioner further contended that after inquiry,
the Vigilance Cell submitted it's report dated 29/12/2014 to the
Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee, wherein the Research
Officer has raised objection in respect of the affinity of the
Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee
Judgment 4 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by its order dated
30/12/2022 after a lapse of 8 years. It is further contended that
the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the
Tribe Claim of the Petitioner only on the ground of area
restriction and wrongly held that the Petitioner failed to prove
affinity towards 'Thakur' Schedule Tribe. The said order is
challenged under this Petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
following citations :
(i) Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ,
reported in 2018(5) ALL MR 975 (S.C.) and
(ii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in
2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted
that the order passed on 30/12/2022 is well reasoned and there
is no interference warranted.
8. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the
original record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the
Judgment 5 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
assistance of Assistant Government Pleader and considered the
citations relied on by the Petitioner.
9. For the sake of convenience the Family Tree is
reproduced as under :
10. The Petitioner placed on record as many as 10
documents showing his caste as "Thakur". The Vigilance Cell
procured certain documents in which two documents in respect
of Narayan (father) of the year 1936 and Pandu (grandfather)
dated 17/09/1918. Both these documents are prior to 1950 as
the same were procured by the Vigilance Cell. If the remark
column of the Vigilance Cell report is perused, the documents of
1918, 1936, 1965 and 1970 are duly verified by the Vigilance
Judgment 6 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
Officer showing Caste as "Thakur". The document pertaining to
Pandu S/o Bhonaji Thakur, it is submitted by the Vigilance Cell
that they conducted an enquiry, there is an entry of Thakur and
forefathers of the Petitioner were residing at Bhongaon, Tahsil
Shegaon, District Buldhana, however, it is submitted that this
place is not within the area declared as Scheduled Tribe.
Moreover, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not passed
affinity test. There is no adverse entry in all the documents and
caste is shown as Thakur which is duly verified by the Vigilance
Cell. There is one document pertaining to Narayan Pandu
Thakur. The documents is dated 03/03/1965 showing that
Narayan Pandu Thakur gave birth to a male child 'Gajanan'. The
Domicile shows the date of birth of Gajanan dated 03/03/1965
and place of birth is shown as Bhongaon. The names of all these
persons are appearing in the family tree. It appears that in the
whole order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, there are
no considerations to the old documents which are duly verified
by the Vigilance Cell and caste claim was rejected only on the
ground of affinity and area restrictions.
Judgment 7 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
11. It is admitted position that area restrictions have
been removed vide order of 1976 therefore, it lost its
importance. So for as the affinity test is concerned, it is settled
position of law that when there are pre-independence
documents showing caste Thakur, in fact, there is no need to
conduct the affinity test. Even if it is conducted, there is no
standard for affinity test. The Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected
the claim of the Petitioner on the basis of irrelevant documents.
While deciding the claim of the Petitioner, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee ought not to have invalidate the claim on the basis of
some general information such as many persons have withdrawn
their claim as belonging to Thakur community. There may be
persons who have withdrawn their claim as belonging to Thakur,
which has no bearing on the claim of the Petitioner. One of the
reason for discarding the documents is that there is no entry of
scheduled tribe. It is a matter of fact that Thakur tribe has
become Thakur Scheduled Tribe after 1950. All these aspects are
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra). The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the referred judgment para 25 and 36 held as under :
Judgment 8 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
"25. Now, we come to the controversy
regarding the affinity test. In clause (5) of
Paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil it is held that in the case
of Scheduled Tribes, the Vigilance Cell will
submit a report as regards peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deities,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies
etc. in respect of the particular caste or tribe.
Such particulars ascertained by the Vigilance
Cell in respect of a particular Scheduled Tribe
are very relevant for the conduct of the affinity
test. The Vigilance Cell, while conducting an
affinity test, verified the knowledge of the
applicant about deities of the community,
customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular
Scheduled Tribe. By its very nature, such an
affinity test can never be conclusive. If the
applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along
with his family for decades or if his family has
stayed in such urban areas for decades, the
applicant may not have knowledge of the
aforesaid facts. It is true that the Vigilance Cell
can also question the parents of the applicant.
But in a given case, even the parents may be
unaware for the reason that for several years
they have been staying in bigger urban areas.
On the other hand, a person may not belong to
the particular tribe, but he may have a good
knowledge about the aforesaid aspects.
Therefore, Shri Shekhar Naphade, the learned
senior counsel, is right when he submitted that
Judgment 9 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus
test. We may again note here that question of
conduct of the affinity test arises only in those
cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not
satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant.
36. 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 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."
Judgment 10 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed
reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra) wherein the facts involved is as
under :
"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 Gazettee 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.
2. In our considered opinion, that is wholly
irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish
that they belong to community mentioned at
Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of
Act No.108 of 1976."
13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Scrutiny
Committee has not considered the old documents of 1918, 1936,
Judgment 11 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
1965 and 1970 and not even discussed the same in the order.
The claim is rejected only on the ground of affinity test and area
restriction. In view of the Judgment in Jaywant Dilip Pawar
(supra), the appellants have only to establish that they belong to
community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second
Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976. The Petitioner have duly
established that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. As such
he is entitled for validity certificate as claimed for.
14. Thus, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee is liable to be set aside being perverse, illegal and
erroneous. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 30/12/2022, passed by
the Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in case
No. lvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/2013/13043, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that
he belongs to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
Judgment 12 J-WP No.644.2023.odt
(iv) The Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby
directed to issue validity certificates of "Thakur"
Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner - Gajanan S/o
Narayan Donge 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: 07/10/2025 18:40:49
