Bombay High Court
Ishika D/O Gajanan Kelkar And Another vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:9526-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7468 OF 2024
1) Ishika D/o Gajanan Kelkar,
Aged about 23 years, Occ. Education,
2) Shravan S/o Gajanan Kelkar,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Education,
Both R/o. Saraf Line, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Rajapura, Karanja Lad,
Tah. Karanja, District Washim
.... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal,
Through its Research Officer and
Member Secretary
.... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T. U. Tathod, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 09.09.2025
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Judgment 2 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties at the
stage of admission.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the
order dated 05/03/2024 passed by the Respondent - Scheduled
Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred
to as "the Scrutiny Committee") whereby the tribe claims of the
Petitioners of belonging to 'Raj' Scheduled Tribe came to be
rejected.
3. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ
Petition are as under:-
4. The Petitioner No. 1 has completed her B.Sc.
Nursing. The Petitioner No. 2 is pursuing his H.S.C. According to
the Petitioners, they belong to tribe 'Raj' which is recognized as
the Scheduled Tribe category as per Entry No. 18 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The tribe claims of
the Petitioners were forwarded for verification to the
Respondent - Scrutiny Committee. It is the contention of the
Petitioners that the Scrutiny Committee has also invalidated the
Judgment 3 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
tribe claims of cousin uncle and aunt of the Petitioners. The said
invalidation was challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 4660/2017
and connected matters. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by
this Court by the order dated 07/09/2023 thereby directing the
Scrutiny Committee to issue caste validity certificates to the
cousin uncle and aunt of the Petitioners.
5. The cousin brother of the Petitioners, whose claim
was also pending like the Petitioners, had also approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6029/2023 seeking validity
certificate in the light of the directions issued to the Scrutiny
Committee in the above Writ Petitions. This Court allowed the
said Writ Petition and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue
validity certificate to the cousin brother of the Petitioners.
6. It is submitted that the Respondent - Scrutiny
Committee, after completion of the enquiry by the Vigilance
Cell, has issued show cause notice to the Petitioners along with
copy of the Vigilance Cell report. In response to the show cause
notice, the Petitioners filed their reply along with copies of the
above judgments of this Court wherein directions were issued to
Judgment 4 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
the Scrutiny Committee to grant validity certificates to the
relatives of the Petitioners.
7. It is submitted that in spite of giving detailed
explanation, submissions of various documents of pre-
independence era and various judgments of this Court, the
Respondent - Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claims of
the Petitioners by the impugned order dated 05/03/2024. The
said order dated 05/03/2024 is the subject matter of challenge
in the present Writ Petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that
the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe
claims of the Petitioners without verifying the genuineness and
authenticity of the documents of the years 1918, 1928, 1934,
1943 and 1947. The Vigilance Cell Report and the impugned
order mention that since the forefathers of the Petitioners were
educated before independence, it further observed that the
forefather of the Petitioners come under the main stream of
Society and because of this, it cannot be said that the Petitioners
belong to 'Raj' Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the Scrutiny
Judgment 5 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
Committee has also not considered the judgments of this Court
in which direction was issued to the Scrutiny Committee to issue
validity certificates to the relatives of the Petitioners. Hence, he
prays that the impugned order dated 05/03/2024 be quashed
and set aside and direction may be issued to the Respondent -
Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificates to the
Petitioners.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his
contentions, relied on the following citations:-
(i) Writ Petition No. 5564/2016 (Sanjay Pralhadrao
Kelkar vs. Deputy Director/Chairman, Scheduled
Caste Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati & another) along with
connected matters;
(ii) Writ Petition No. 6029/2023 (Sahil Sanjay Kelkar vs.
Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal
& another);
(iii) Writ Petition No. 08/2025 (Aditi S/o Sanjay Kelkar
vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal);
(iv) Writ Petition No. 7473/2024 (Rutuja D/o Ravindra
Kelkar & another vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal); and
(v) Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur &
Others, reported on 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
10. On the contrary, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee supports the
impugned order. He has submitted that the Vigilance Enquiry
and the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Officer clearly
show that the Petitioners could not prove their social cultural
affinity with 'Raj' Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that Shri
Kodape, District President of SC/ST Organization Confederation,
New Delhi, Branch at Yavatmal lodged complaint against the
Petitioners and submitted that the Petitioners are taking benefit
of synonymous nomenclature and submitted false & bogus
certificates on record, so also, various adverse entries are
mentioned in the report of the Vigilance Cell. Insofar as non-
consideration of the judgments of this Court by the Respondent
- Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it is submitted that in the
Vigilance Enquiry, adverse contra material i.e. tribes such as
Maratha, Gavandi, Marathi Raj, Gond, Rajgond have been
procured, which were not available before the then Committee
at the time of passing of the order, so also before this Court in
the respective Petitions. It is submitted that the explanation
submitted by the Petitioners to the Vigilance Cell was not
satisfactory as the oldest documents submitted were not reliable,
Judgment 7 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
hence, the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected
the claim of the Petitioners. Hence, he submits that the
impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee does not
suffer from any illegality, and hence, the Writ Petition filed by
the Petitioners may be dismissed.
11. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record
and proceedings placed on record by the learned Additional
Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by
the Petitioners.
12. For the sake of convenience, family tree is
reproduced as under :
13. The Petitioners have placed on record various
documents, out of which following are the documents prior to
cut off date :
Judgment 8 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
v- nLr,sotkps Lo:i nLr,sotkojhy tkr iqjkO;kpk vtZnkjka'kh
dz- O;Drhps uko fnukad ukrs
1 'kkys; iqjkok ¼ft-i- eqjyh/kj fo'oukFk jkt 19-06-1946 vtZnkjkaps
izkFk ejkBh 'kkGk½ pqyr dkdk
2 'kkys; iqjkok jes'k fo"oukFk ejkBh 01-07-1953 vtZnkjkaps
¼ft- i- izkFk- ejkBh dsGdj jkt pqyr dkdk
'kkGk dz-3 dkjatk
¼ykM½ ft- okf'ke½
3 'kkys; iqjkok txUukFk ek/kojko jkt 21-09-1932 vtZnkjkaps
¼u- i- izkFk- ejkBh O;olk;&jktdke vktksck
'kkGk] dz-3] dkjatk]
ft- okf'ke½
4 tUe izek.ki= Ekk/kks flrkjke jkt tUe fnukad vtZnkjkaps
¼u- i- dkjatk ykM] jkt 30-07-1928 iatksck
ft- okf'ke½
5 'kkys; iqjkok txUukFk ek/kojko jkt 03-07-1939 vtZnkjkaps
¼ft- i- izkFk- ejkBh vktksck
'kkGk dz-3] dkjatk]
ft- okf"ke½
6 tUe izek.ki= olark fo"oukFk jkt 10-02-1947
¼u- i- dkjatk] ft- ek/kojkt
okf'ke½
7 'kkys; iqjkok izYgknjko jkt 16-07-1952 vtZnkjkaps
¼eq- ts- u- i- ek/; ek/kojko dsGdj pqyr
fo?kky; o dfu"B vktksck
foKku egkfo?kky;]
dkjatk] ft- vdksyk½
8 tUe izek.ki= fo'oukFk ek/ko jkt tUe fnukad vtZnkjkaps
¼u- i- dkjatk ¼ykM½ jkt ;kl ,d L=h 21-08-1943 pqyr
ft- okf'ke½ viR; >kY;kph uksan.kh vktksck
uksan fnukad
22-08-1943
9 tUe izek.ki= Ekk/kks flrkjke jkt 30-07-1928 vtZnkjkaps
¼u- i- dkjatk jkt ;kl ,d iatksck
¼ykM½] ft- okf"ke½ iq:'k viR;
txUukFk >kY;kph
uksan
10 LFkkoj cf{kli= Ekk/kojko flrkjke jkt 22-06-1915 vtZnkjkaps
¼lg nq;e fuca/kd dsGdj iatksck
oxZ&2] dz-1] vdksyk
;kaps dk;kZy;½
Judgment 9 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
11 tUe izek.ki= Ekk/kksjko flrkjke jkt 11-02-1934 vtZnkjkaps
¼u- i- dkjatk ykM]jkt ;kl ,d L=h iatksck
ft- okf"ke½ viR; >kY;kph
uksan
12 tUe izek.ki= Ekk/kojko flrksck jkt 29-05-1918 vtZnkjkaps
¼uxj ifj'kn] dkjatk jkt ;kl ,d iatksck
¼ykM½] ft- okf"ke½ iq:'k viR;
>kY;kph uksan
14. There are some documents procured by the Vigilance
Cell, however, the documents are subsequent to 1950. In the
documents of 1943 and 1946 remark column shows that the
family tree of grandmother showing caste 'Maratha'. All the
documents at Sr. No.1 to 23 procured by Vigilance Cell cannot
be considered for deciding caste claim of the Petitioners as the
said entries are through the wife of grandfather and cousin
grandfather. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is
somehow bent upon to invalidate the tribe certificate in favour
of the Petitioners.
15. On perusal of the old documents produced by the
Petitioners, those are rejected for no reason. The school entry in
respect of cousin uncle dated 19/06/1946 is discarded on the
ground that there is no affidavit in support of that entry of the
parents. Similarly, the document dated 03/07/1939 in respect of
Judgment 10 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
grandfather of the Petitioners is also discarded on the same
ground i.e. for want of affidavit of the parents. The Scrutiny
Committee must know that in affidavit of the parents with the
school, there is no column of caste, only the date of birth is
required to be affirmed. The entry of 21/09/1932 in respect of
grandfather of the Petitioners is also discarded on the same
ground.
16. The document dated 30/07/1928 is concerned,
which is birth certificate in respect of Madho Sitaram Raj, who
gave birth to one male child. Though it is observed that in the
said entry of birth the name of child is shown as Jagannath, this
document was discarded on their mere suspicion. The birth
entry of 21/08/1943 showing Vishwanath Madhav Raj, who
gave birth a male child, though it is verified, it was discarded on
the ground that there is no reference which child is born. The
learned Members of Scrutiny Committee ought to have
considered that the name of the father of the child is Vishwanath
Madhav Raj, their place of residence is matching with the
forefather's residence and name of Vishwanth Madhav Raj is
Judgment 11 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
appearing in the family tree. From this document it appears that
the delivery was carried out in the house itself.
17. There is a document pertaining to the great-
grandfather of the Petitioners dated 30/07/1928, which shows
that the great-grandfather gave birth to a male child namely
Jagannath. Similarly, all other documents showing tribe as "Raj"
are discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee without any
reason and some extraneous reasons showing them as
suspicious. While doing so, the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed
to appreciate that there are validity certificates issued in favour
of uncle Sanjay Kelkar, Ravindra Kelkar, paternal aunt Jaishree
Kelkar and cousin Sahil Sanjay Kelkar of the Petitioners.
Ignoring the judgments passed by this Court in Writ Petition
Nos.5564/2016, 4660/2017, 4661/2017 and 6029/2023, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee exceeding its jurisdiction passed the
impugned order. The documents procured by the Vigilance Cell,
as already stated are of the persons related through maternal
side and those cannot be considered for invalidation.
18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the
Judgment in Writ Petition No.5564/2016 with connected
Judgment 12 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
matters (supra), wherein this Court granted validity to Sanjay
Pralhadrao Kelkar, Ravindra Pralhad Kelkar and Ku. Jayashri
Pralhad Kelkar. In the said Judgment this Court relied on
Apoorva D/o Vijay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 ,
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Sate
of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J.785 and Priya Gajbe Vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 909. This Court held that,
"It has been consistently held that pre-
constitutional documents have greater
evidentiary value and entries made therein can
be safely relied upon. However, ignoring this
dictum, merely on the above ground, the learned
Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim."
We are of the considered opinion that in view of the
entries made in the School Leaving Certificates, Birth and Death
Register, all of which are pre-constitutional documents, wherein
the caste is recorded as "Raj" of the grandfather, father and
uncle which clearly established the claim of the Petitioners as
they belong to "Raj" Scheduled Tribe.
Judgment 13 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
19. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also
placed reliance on Apoorva D/o Vijay Nichale (supra), wherein
in para 9 it is held as under :
"9. The matters pertaining to validity of caste
have a great impact on the candidate as well as
on the future generations in many matters
varying from marriage to education and
enjoyment, and therefore where a committee
has given a finding about the validity of the
caste of a candidate another committee ought
not to refuse the same status to a blood relative
who applies. A merely different view on the
same facts would not entitle the committee
dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject
it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us
earlier that if a committee is of the view that the
earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would
not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity
certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste
claim and also in addition initiate proceedings
for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view
of the matter, we are of the view that the
petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in
above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is
directed to furnish the caste validity certificate
to the petitioner."
20. In the matter of Sanjay Pralhadrao Kelkar (supra),
this Court considered the documents which are now rejected on
erroneous grounds. This Court held that there cannot be any
two opinions about the veracity and genuineness of the entries
Judgment 14 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
made therein which unequivocally demonstrate that the
ancestor of the Petitioners belong to the Tribe "Raj" which has
been declared as a Schedule Tribe by way of amendment dated
29/10/1956 in entry 12 (Part IV) which has been carried
forwarded as entry 18 in the amendment to the Presidential
(Schedule Tribe) Order 1950, dated 18/09/1976. In respect of
this decision, the Scrutiny Committee is having audacity to pass
such a decision relying on the documents from the maternal side
and discarding the documents erroneously which are old and
from paternal side. As such, the decision of the Scrutiny
Committee is perverse, unsustainable and needs to be quashed
and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05/03/2024, passed by
the Respondent No.2 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in case Nos.
(1) 11/502/Edu/082023/6597 and (2) 11/502/Edu/
082023/6595, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established
that they belong to tribe "Raj" Scheduled Tribe entry
No.18.
Judgment 15 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to issue
validity certificates of "Raj" Scheduled Tribe to the
Petitioners within a period of three weeks.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of 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: 22/09/2025 18:28:16
