Bombay High Court
Anita D/O Haribhau Bayaskar ( Sau. Anita ... vs The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:9338-DB
1 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1000 OF 2024
Anita d/o Haribhau Bayaskar (Sau. Anita w/o
Dashrath Lakhapure), aged about 56 yrs, Occ.
Service, r/o at post - Vyankatesh Nagar, Risod,
Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. 444506
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Vice Chairman/member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Washim.
3. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat
Samiti Risod, Dist. Washim.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Ms Preeti Rane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 02.09.2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.09.2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of
2 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the matter.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
4. The petitioner by way of present petition questioned the order
passed by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee ('Scrutiny Committee)
dated 29.12.2023 by which the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.
5. In short it is the case of the petitioner that she claims to be
belonging of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No.44 of the
Scheduled Tribes Order. The petitioner possesses the caste certificate dated
22.06.1984 issued by the Competent Authority. It is the submission of the
petitioner that by following due procedure of law, she has been appointed as
an Assistant Teacher in the Zilla Parishad, Washim against the post reserved
for Scheduled Tribe category.
6. After her appointment, respondent no.2 has forwarded caste
claim of the petitioner to respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee in the year
2013. Along with the proposal the petitioner has relied upon the old entries
of her great grandfather namely Bhiwaji Ganesh dated 05.01.1933 and
extract of Kotwal Book of cousin brother namely Gajanan along with other
document demonstrating the tribe as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
3 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
7. After forwarding the caste claim of the petitioner to the
Scrutiny Committee, the Committee has conducted enquiry into the caste
claim of the petitioner in the year 2017. At that time, the statement of the
petitioner and her sister was recorded and all the documents submitted by
her were verified.
8. However no further steps were taken in the matter and kept it
pending on the file of respondent no.2. In the meantime, due to not
submitting the tribe claim by the petitioner, she was placed on
supernumerary post in view of the policy of the Government. That time
petitioner has approached to this Court vide Writ Petition No.1859 of 2020 in
which this Court has granted protection to the services of the petitioner. Later
on, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad. The said Court has directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide
the tribe claim of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date
of communication of the order.
9. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 26.03.2023
pointing out that all the old entries on which the petitioner has relied upon
are the correct entries, which are not disputed by the Vigilance Cell also and
therefore, requested that her caste claim should be considered positively.
10. However, respondent Scrutiny Committee without considering
the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, invalidated the
4 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
tribe claim of the petitioner on the ground of documentary evidence, affinity
and area restriction. Hence, she constrains to approach before this Court by
way of present petition.
11. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
respondent Scrutiny Committee has relied upon the caste invalidation of
caste claim of petitioner's cousin niece namely Varsha Narayan Bayaskar,
which is upheld by this Court, invalidation of Subhash Mitharam Bayaskar
Raju Mitharam Bayaskar who are cousin brothers of the petitioner and lastly
invalidation of caste claim of real sister of petitioner namely Kalpana
Haribhau Bayaskar.
12. It is the submission of the respondent Scrutiny Committee that
the caste claim of real sister and cousin sister has been invalidated by the
caste Scrutiny Committee and one of the decision is upheld by this Court.
Hence, considering this aspect of the matter, the Committee cannot be said at
fault to invalidate the tribe claim of petitioner. Hence there need no
interference of the Court in the matter.
13. We have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the record and original record produced by the respondent
Scrutiny Committee.
14. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
5 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2023 SCC Online 326 ,
particularly paragraphs 19 and 20, which read thus :
"19. Sub rule (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.
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
Patil1. It lays down that the documents of the preConstitution
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 preConstitution period showing that he belongs to a
tribal community, there is no 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. "
15. The petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in
Writ Petition No.14111 of 2021 (Mangesh s/o Panditrao Thakur vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors.) dated 12.03.2025 , wherein this Court recorded its
6 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
finding in paragraphs 13 and 14, which read thus
"13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti Narayan
Vishve's certificate and the order has attained finality right up
to the Supreme Court. However, we have been consistently
holding that the decision of the scrutiny committee would
only bind the claimant and would not bind the blood
relatives, for the simple reason that they are not parties to
such adjudication and that a blood relative may be able to
substantiate his claim by leading cogent and relevant
evidence sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon
him under section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.
14. In the light of above, assuming for the sake of arguments
that the validities were obtained by the petitioners' relatives
mentioned herein-above, deliberately concealing the order of
invalidation of a similar claim of Jyoti Narayan Vishve, that
cannot be a decisive factor in the light of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra)."
16. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Anand vs.
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors. 2011 (6)
Mh.L.J. particulary at paragraphs 18 and 19 which read as under.
"18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the
genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on
a thorough examination of the documents submitted in
support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would
include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the
applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay
down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically
to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the
following broad parameters could be kept in view while
dealing with a caste claim:
(i) 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. In case the applicant is
the first generation ever to attend school, the availability
7 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that
ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In
fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to
attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the
applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event
of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity
has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which
an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the
ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a
cautious approach has to be adopted. 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. Hence, affinity test
may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link
of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the
claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and
is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se
be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not
match his tribes' peculiar anthropological and ethnological
traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the
affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary
evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.
19. Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste claim
is upon the applicant. He has to produce all the requisite
documents in support of his claim. The Caste Scrutiny
Committee merely performs the role of verification of the
claim and therefore, can only scrutinise the documents and
material produced by the applicant. In case, the material
produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the
Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or
disprove his claim."
17. In the present petition, the petitioner fairly pointed out from the
pleadings itself that she has already disclosed in the matter that caste claim
8 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
i.e. tribe claim of real sister and cousin brothers have already been rejected
by the Scrutiny Committee. However, as per law laid down by this Court, the
decision of the Scrutiny Committee bind the claimant only and same would
not bind the blood relatives, for the reasons that she/he was not a party to
the such adjudication. We concurred with the law laid down by this Court
that merely because, the caste claim of the blood relatives has been rejected
by the Scrutiny Committee, cannot be a sole ground to dismiss the present
petition. As per the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, every case is required to be tested on its own merits, and
therefore, we are of the confirmed opinion that the merits of the present case
are necessary to be looked into while deciding the tribe claim of the
petitioner.
18. In the present petition, the petitioner has relied upon the old
entries of her ancestors. Particularly, extract of death certificate of great
grandfather namely Bhiwaji Ganesh dated 05.01.1933. Perusal of the said
kotwal entry shows that the caste was recorded as 'Thakur'. School leaving
certificate of real uncle namely Shriram Shivram shows date of birth is
16.11.1923 and caste is mentioned as 'Thakur'. School leaving certificate of
another real uncle namely Mitharam Shivram Bayaskar shows date of birth as
01.06.4935 and date of leaving the school was as 05.05.1946, where the
caste was recorded as 'Thakur. Another real uncle namely Rambhau Shivram
Thakur registered entry dated 20.02.1956 shows his caste as 'Thakur'. As
9 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
such, all these documents are clearly establish the fact that the ancestors of
the petitioner belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
19. It is pertinent to note that in the present petition the Vigilance
Cell has submitted joint enquiry report in the case of Kalpana Bayaskar and
present petitioner Anita Bayaskar. The said report clearly shows that as per
the documents furnished by the petitioner particularly of her grandfather and
father of the year 1925 and 1931 shows that the caste was recorded as
'Thakur'. However, in respect of old entries on which the petitioner has relied
upon, it is stated that as per communication of the concerned Officer of the
Tahsil office Rajanda on 21.07.2007, the record of Kotwal book at Tahsil
Office destroyed due to catch of fire. Hence, the Vigilance Cell could not
verify the relevant entries of Kotwal Book. In this regard, we have perused
the original record, wherein we found that the petitioner has produced
certified copy of the Kotwal register entry. The said copy was obtained
authentically in the year 2002, i.e. before the record was destroyed. As such,
there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Further it is settled principles of law
that the certified copy which the petitioner has relied upon, is having
evidenciary value and cannot be discarded merely because the Vigilance Cell
not verified from the office of Tahsil. Hence, we are not agreeable to the
finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in this regard.
20. In the present petition, respondent Scrutiny Committee also
relied upon the Vigilance Cell report dated 18.07.2022. As per said school
10 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
record entries of father and uncle dated 10.08.1929, 22.06.1931, 25.04.1942
were verified and Vigilance Cell specifically recorded the finding that after
verification of the same, the father and uncle of the petitioner found to be
belonging to tribe 'Thakur'. However, there is no consideration of this factual
aspect in the entire order passed by respondent no. 1 Committee.
21. The Vigilance Cell report dated 18.07.2022 further revealed the
fact that as per the remark of enquiry officer, he had visited the Zilla Parishad
Higher Primary School, Rajanda and verified the record. From the school
record, he found that real uncle of the petitioner namely Shriram, father Hari
Shivram and uncle Meetharam Shivram, cousin Raju Meetharam, sisters of
the petitioner Kalpana and Sunita found to be belonging to tribe 'Thakur' as
per the record in between the year 1929 to 1978. Hence, according to us, the
Vigilance Cell report was required to be considered by the Scrutiny
Committee while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. However, there is
no consideration of all these findings of the Vigilance Cell in either way in the
matter, particularly when respondent no.1 Committee has discretion either to
accept or reject the report.
22. We have came across to many decision of the Scrutiny
Committee, where we notice that the Scrutiny Committee in most of the cases
accepted the Vigilance Cell report if it is against the candidate as it is and
without applying its mind, rejected the caste/tribe claim of the candidates.
Time and again, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
11 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
that the Scrutiny Committee has to apply its own mind while deciding the
caste/tribe claim irrespective of the fact whether the report of the vigilance
cell is positive or negative. And record the reason as to why they are
accepting the Vigilance Cell report or rejecting the finding of the Vigilance
Cell report. As a result there is flood of cases due to negative approach of the
Committee members. It is expected from the Committee to decide the matter
judicially as they are functioning as a quasi judicial body.
23. In the present matter, vigilance cell has communicated to the
Scrutiny Committee that the record of the Tahsil office Rajanda being
destroyed due to catch of fire they could not verify the documents forwarded
to them. As such, it is expected from the Committee to apply its judicial mind
and considered the fact that the record was destroyed in the year 2007
whereas the petitioner has produced the certified copy obtained from the
same office before the year 2007. Therefore, the Committee can rely upon the
certified copy as same is having the evidenciary value. But merely the record
was destroyed, all the old entries on which the petitioner has relied upon, are
disbelieved by the respondent Scrutiny Committee.
24. In respect of the affinity test, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny (supra) has specifically laid down
the principles as reproduced above by holding that the affinity test is not to
be considered as a litmus test for deciding the caste claim of the candidate. It
is further held in the catena of judgment that the affinity test arises only in
12 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
those cases where the Scrutiny Committee has not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. Again the Caste Scrutiny Committee is required to
apply its own mind while conducting the affinity test. But in present matter
there is no consideration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
25. In the present petition, from the record it is clear that the officer
has conducted the affinity test by recording the statement in question-answer
form. The petitioner has answered the questions and established that she
belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. We are of the opinion that her family at
present are residing in rural area and nature of their living standard has been
changed during the passage of time. Therefore, the affinity test cannot be
applied as a litmus test in the matter.
26. In the background of the above said reason, we are of the
opinion that respondent Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the factual as
well as legal aspect involved in the matter and thereby erroneously rejected
the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence we proceed to pass the following
order :
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 Caste
Scrutiny Committee is hereby quash and set aside.
(c) Respondent no. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby directed to
13 14.wp.1000.2024.odt
issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner of Thakur
Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of
this order.
27. Rule is made absolute in aforestated terms. No order as to
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2025 19:05:28
