Bombay High Court
Diwakar S/O Babanrao Tayade vs S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8996-DB
1/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2022
Diwakar s/o Babarao Tayade
Age : 47 Years, Occu : Service;
R/o Jayprabha Colony, Near Gajanan Dham
Temple, Amravati. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati Division, Old bye-pass
Road, Chaprashipura, Amravati, Through its
Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner.
2. Shri Ganeshdas Rathi Chhatralaya Samiti,
Amravati, Vidya Nagar, Morshi Road,
Amravati through its Secretary.
3. Shri Deorao Dada High School and Junior
College, Tiwasa, District Amravati, through
its Principal. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. A. P. Kalmegh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. S. V. Kolhe, AGP for Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee.
None for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : AUGUST 26, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 12, 2025.
2/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
JUDGMENT [PER PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the
parties. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, though served.
2. The Petitioner herein questioned the order passed by the
Respondent No.1/Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati (for short, 'the Scrutiny Committee') dated 18/1/2022, by which, his
Scheduled Tribe caste claim is rejected.
3. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe,
which is recognized and at Sr. No. 44 in the list of the Scheduled Tribe
Notification. Accordingly, he obtained caste certificate dated 9/8/1991 from
the Executive Magistrate, Amravati. The Petitioner on the basis of his caste
certificate got appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher in the
Respondent No.3/School and after his appointment in the school, the caste
claim was referred to the Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee on
28/3/2005. The Petitioner, in support of his caste claim, has relied upon the
old entry of his father dated 24/4/1944 i.e. School Leaving Certificate, where
his caste is mentioned as 'Hindu Thakur' and the birth extract of his grand-
father namely, Pundlik Bakaram dated 11/9/1936. As such, on the basis of
3/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
these documents he claims that same being pre-constitutional era document,
his tribe claim should be considered and grant him the caste validity
certificate.
4. It is undisputed fact that after submitting the tribe claim by the
Petitioner to the Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee, the Committee has
referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell
submitted its report on 24/11/2005 to the Scrutiny Committee. In addition to
the documents filed by the Petitioner, the Vigilance Cell Officer has collected
three more documents, viz - (1) Bakaram Chandrabhan, showing his caste as
'Bhat' on the basis of Kotwal Book extract; (2) Dadarao Mahadeo Nichade
having caste entry as 'Thakur'; and (3) Ramesh Dadarao Thakur, having caste
entry as 'Bhat'.
5. After receipt of Vigilance Cell report, the notice was issued to the
Petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the Petitioner, on 4/2/2014
submitted his detail affidavit before the Scrutiny Committee, which runs
atleast 22 pages and thereby denied his relations with the persons namely,
Bakaram Chandrabhan, Dadarao Mahadeo Nichade and Ramesh Dadarao
Thakur.
4/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
6. It is also undisputed fact that after tendering explanation by the
Petitioner, after four years thereafter the Respondent No.1/Committee in the
year 2018 again forwarded the tribe claim of the Petitioner for Vigilance Cell
enquiry. This time Vigilance Cell Officer conducted enquiry and submitted a
report on 14/5/2018. According to this report, it is seen that the Vigilance Cell
report found one entry of 1914, according to which, Bakaram Chandrabhanji,
who according to them is great-grand-father, is recorded as 'Bhat' in the Kotwal
Book Extract and one Tulshiram Bakaram, who is alleged to be cousin grand-
father is having the entry of year 1937 as 'Bhat Thakur'. As such, on the basis
of this report, again show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner, after receipt of show cause notice tendered his
reply on 9/11/2021 and 22/11/2021 before the Respondent No.1/Scrutiny
Committee. The Petitioner categorically stated in his reply that he has already
denied his relation with Bakaram Chandrabhanji, who is recorded as 'Bhat', by
stating that the name of his great-grand-father is Bakaram Nagnath, and
therefore, the Vigilance Cell has wrongly relied upon the entry of unknown
person. It is also stated that the genealogical tree prepared by the Vigilance
Cell itself nowhere shows the name of Chandrabhanji as a father of Bakaram,
and therefore, same is irrelevant to be relied upon by the Committee in respect
5/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
of the entry in the year 1937 which was collected first time in the Vigilance
Cell report dated 14/5/2018. It is stated by the Petitioner that entry of the year
1947 in the name of Babya is related to some other person, who is not related
to the Petitioner. It is stated that Babarao is the son born to Pundlik and his
date of birth is 9/9/1936, which is available in his school record. Hence, the
Petitioner has categorically denied both the entries relied upon by the
Vigilance Cell.
8. After submitting the detail explanation by the Petitioner, the
Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the matter on its
own merits. However, surprisingly the Scrutiny Committee, without
considering the other available documents, which are submitted by the
Petitioner along with his application mainly relied upon the entries dated
15/10/1914 and 9/11/1937 which are specifically denied by the Petitioner in
his reply. As a result of which, tribe claim of the Petitioner is rejected. In the
background of abovesaid factual position, Petitioner constrained to approach
before this Court.
9. In the present Petition, it will be relevant to first consider the
genealogical tree which is undisputed in the matter. Bare perusal of this
genealogical tree shows that Nagnath is great-great-grand-father, Bakaram is
6/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
great-grand-father, Pundlik is grand-father and Babarao is father of the
Petitioner. This genealogical tree is prepared by the Vigilance Cell Officer
during the course of enquiry on 13/4/2018.
10. The Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee has relied upon the
entry dated 15/10/1914, which according to the Committee, is the oldest
entry. The Petitioner has specifically denied the said entry before the
Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee while tendering his explanation to the
show cause notice. However, in the impugned order passed by the Respondent
No.1/Scrutiny Committee there is no finding as to how the explanation
tendered by the Petitioner is not satisfactory or same is not reliable. The only
mention in the impugned order is that the Vigilance Cell Officer has collected
the entries and same being the old entries, the Committee has relied upon
them.
11. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that as per the family tree,
admittedly Bakaram is son of Nagnath, which is not disputed. However, this
entry which is relied upon by the Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee shows
that Bakaram is son of Chandrabhan. Hence, prima facie the document is not
in consonance with the genealogical tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell Officer.
Furthermore, it is not proved by the Vigilance Cell Officer along with any other
7/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
corroborative evidence that Bakaram s/o Chandrabhan is great-great-grand-
father of the Petitioner. Hence, in failure to discharge this burden, as required
under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 (23 of 2001), we are not in a position to accept the same
only because such entry is found or procured by the Vigilance Cell.
12. It is common knowledge that in the village there are the persons
of identical name as Bakaram. Therefore, duty is caste upon the Respondent
No.1/Scrutiny Committee before relying upon any document, which is
procured by the Vigilance Cell to verify every details and discharge the burden
that the entry which they have relied upon is of the person shown in the
genealogical tree, but we found that no such exercise has been done in the
matter while considering the entry of said person. Hence, we are not inclined
to accept the same.
13. The second entry dated 9/11/1937, which is relied upon by the
Committee is of one Tulshiram showing birth of one son Babya and caste as
'Bhat Thakur'. Again from the genealogical tree if the relations are looked into,
it will be clear that no details of Tulshiram are recorded by the Vigilance Cell
8/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
Officer. The only relevancy, which can be seen is that Pundlik was having a son
namely, Babarao, which according to Scrutiny Committee may be 'Babya', and
therefore, same is relied upon. No detail enquiry is conducted, as required
under the settled principles of law. This document shows the date of birth of
son Babya as 9/11/1937.
14. In this regard the Petitioner has rightly pointed out from the
school record, that Babya and Babarao are different persons. Date of birth of
Babarao is recorded in the school record as 9/9/1936 and same is not disputed
by anyone in the matter. On the other hand, the document, which the Scrutiny
Committee has relied upon, is the birth entry of son Babya dated 9/11/1937,
and therefore, this document cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the name of
father of Babya is recorded as Tulshiram, but in the genealogical tree there is
no mention of any issue to Tulshiram. Hence, according to us, again the
Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee failed to prove the relationship of said
Babya with Petitioner's family. Therefore, said old entry is not relevant in the
matter.
15. In addition to above, we would like to clarify as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s State of Maharashtra and
9/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
others, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted Rule
12 of the Rules 2003 and specifically observed in paragraph No.19 as under :
"19. Sub-rue (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence
produced by the applicant, it shall forward the application to the
Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry.
Therefore, in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny
Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance
Cell for conducting an enquiry. When sub-rule (2) of Rule 12
contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should
be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee
is required to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not
satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. Before
referring the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the
material produced by the applicant is required and therefore the
application of mind must be reflected in the order sheets of the
Scrutiny Committee."
In the same Judgment in respect of old entries, Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed in paragraph No.20 as under :
"20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which
cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance Cell.
One of the tests is as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil.
It lays down that the documents of the pre-constitution period
showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the
highest probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to
produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre-constitution
period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no
10/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no
reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order. In such
a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all."
16. As such, from the Judgment it is now crystal clear that Scrutiny
Committee, before referring the matter to the Vigilance Cell, is required to pass
an order recording brief reasons as to why it is not satisfied with the
documents produced by the applicant. Further, if the Committee is not satisfied
with the first report of the Vigilance Cell, it is also necessary to record the
reasons as to why Committee is of the opinion to conduct fresh enquiry
through Vigilance Cell and in respect of documents of pre-constitution period,
it is held that showing the caste of ancestors have the highest probative value.
17. In the present Petition it is admitted fact that before the
Respondent No.1/Committee the Vigilance Cell report dated 24/11/2005 was
very much available. The Petitioner also tendered his reply to the show cause
notice issued on the basis of said report. However, perusal of the record shows
that without recording any reasons the Respondent No.1/Committee again
forwarded the tribe claim of the Petitioner to the Vigilance Cell, and
accordingly, the second Vigilance Cell report was received by the Committee on
14/5/2018.
11/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
18. We, therefore, of the opinion that Respondent No.1/Committee
has violated Rule 12 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 and consequently the
documents procured by the second Vigilance Cell seems to be afterthought in
the matter. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that Respondent
No.1/Committee should deprecate the practice of forwarding caste claim to
the Vigilance Cell as a matter of routine and record the brief reasons as to why
they are not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant.
19. In the present matter from the record it is clear that the Petitioner
has specifically relied upon the pre-constitutional documents i.e. school leaving
certificate of his father dated 24/4/1944 and birth extract of Pundik Bakaram
dated 11/9/1936. Both these documents clearly shows the tribe of the
Petitioner as 'Thakur'. But, both these documents are not positively considered
by the Respondent No.1/Committee. We are of the opinion that both these
documents are having higher probative value as the said entries are of pre-
constitutional era. Hence, we are satisfied that Petitioner belongs to caste
'Thakur' on the basis of old documentary entries produced by him before the
Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order.
12/12 Judg.wp.4873.2022.odt
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The impugned order dated 18/1/2022 passed by the Respondent
No.1/Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(3) It is hereby declared that Petitioner belongs to caste 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe which is recognized and at Sr. No. 44 in the schedule of
Notification.
(4) The Respondent No.1/Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue the 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe validity Certificate to the Petitioner within a period of four
weeks.
20. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2025 18:50:34
