[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Premrao Hedau vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Chief ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5881-DB
J-wp4779.22 final.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
--------
WRIT PETITION NO. 4779 OF 2022
Mr. Rajendra S/o Premrao Hedau,
age- 45 years, occ. Service, Permanently
residing at House No. 815 A, Near Hedau
Painter's House, Navi Vasti, Tandapeth,
Nagpur -440017, presently residing at flat
No. 303, Sky Space Co-Op Housing Society,
Plot No. 119, Sector 34, Kamothe, Navi
Mumbai-410 209.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary, 6th Floor,
Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru Chauk,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai PIN 400032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, through it's
Member Secretary, Office at 2nd Floor,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Amravati Road,
Giripeth, Nagpur PIN 440010.
3 Union of India,
Through its Secretary, Department of Post,
Ministry of Communication, Office at
:Postal Directorate, Dak Bhavan, New
Delhi, 110001.
4. Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra
Circle, Office at 2nd floor, Mumbai GPO
Old Building, Mumbai - 400 001.
J-wp4779.22 final.odt 2/12
5 The Senior Superintendent of Post
Offices Navi Mumbai Division,
Office at Vashi MDG, Sector 16,
Vashi Navi Mumbai 400703
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.D. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.V. Narale, AGP for respondent/State
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.04.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.
2, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in
Case No. 6-ST/2015/12706, whereby the Petitioner's claim to
"Halba" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.
3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Postal Assistant on
25.04.2005 on a post reserved for the ST category and is presently
posted at Post Office Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The Respondent No. 5
issued a charge-sheet on 30.03.2015 and referred the matter to the
Scrutiny Committee on 29.02.2016. The Scrutiny Committee
passed its First Invalidation Order on 30.12.2020. This Court, by
order dated 09.02.2021 in Writ Petition No. 788/2021, quashed the
said order and remanded the matter, directing the Scrutiny
Committee to assess documents only on the touchstone of whether
they are forged, fake, or fabricated. Upon remand, the Scrutiny
Committee again invalidated the claim by the impugned order
dated 18.07.2022, which is the subject matter of the present
petition.
4. The Petitioner relied upon the following documents:
Sr. Document Person Relation- Caste Date/Year
No. ship
1. Admission Register Pandurang Ragho Great Halba 31.03.1909
Extract, Z.P. Grand-
Gopalrao Wagh father
Primary School,
Ashti, Dist. Wardha
2. School Leaving Pandurang Ragho Great Halba 30.04.1917
Certificate, same Grand-
school father
3. Admission Register Mahadeo S/o Grand- Halba 01.06.1933
Extract, N.M.C., Pandurang Ragho father
Nagpur Hedau
4. School Leaving Mahadeo S/o Grand- Halba 30.03.1937
Certificate, Pandurang Ragho father
Chitanvispura Hedau
Primary School,
Nagpur
5. Residence Card, Mahadeo Grand- Halba 25.03.1949
Central Provinces Pandurang Hedau father
Government
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Scrutiny Committee, in willful defiance of this Court's directions in
Writ Petition No.788/2021, re-agitated grounds already set aside,
thereby committing willful contempt. It is further submitted that
the pre-constitutional documents of Great Grand-father Pandurang
Ragho were wrongly discarded as forged, in violation of Section 79
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which raises a presumption of
genuineness of certified copies of public documents. It is
contended that the Scrutiny Committee erred in applying area
restriction, as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Act, 1976 had repealed the same and reliance on
Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241 is misplaced in
view of Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333, which
holds that directions under Article 142 are not enforceable by State
authorities. Lastly, it is submitted that the affinity test cannot be the
sole basis for rejection, as held in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny
and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113, and rejection
on surmises and conjectures is unsustainable in law.
6. The Petitioner has placed reliance on the following
judgments: (i) Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113; (ii) Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham,
(2012) 1 SCC 333; (iii) Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241; (iv)
Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (5) ALL MR
975; (v) Writ Petition No. 788/2021, order dated 09.02.2021 of
this Court; and (vi) Writ Petition No. 2681/2015, order dated
18.03.2016 of this Court.
Genealogical tree is as under :
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition. During vigilance inquiry,
the following documents of the Petitioner's blood relatives were
brought on record :
Sr. Document Person Relationship Caste Date/Year
No
1. Birth Extract Male child of Great Koshti 11.05.1925
Pandurang Ragho Grand-
father's
line
2. Birth Extract, M. Female child, Grand- Koshti 01.03.1945
Corp. Nagpur Lachchhmi, of father's line
Mahadeo
Pandurang
3. Birth Extract, M. Male child of Grand- Koshti 16.04.1947
Corp. Nagpur Mahadeo father's line
Pandurang
4. Home Tax Extract, Mahadeo S/o Grand- Koshti 1953-54
Tandapeth, Pandurang and father and
Nagpur brother Upashya Grand-uncle
5. School Document, Premrao Mahadeo Father Koshti 11.07.1955
M. Corp. Nagpur Hedau
8. It is submitted that the caste of the Petitioner's blood
relatives is consistently recorded as "Koshti" across documents from
1925 to 1955, which carry high probative value and that their place
of residence, surnames, deities, and socio-cultural affinity do not
correspond with "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted
that during inquiry on 30.11.2018, two Admission Registers were
found at Z.P. Gopalrao Wagh Primary School, Ashti, wherein the
same Admission No. 1146 records "Bhagawan" with caste "Teli" in
Register 1-A and "Pandurang Ragho Halba" in Register 1-B, creating
serious doubt as to authenticity, which the Headmaster was unable
to explain.
9. It is further submitted that on 17.06.2019, the
Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of Maroti Ramchandraji
Hedau, aged 72 years, permanent resident of Shendurjanaghat,
District Amaravati, who stated that there are only six houses of
Hedau surname persons in Shendurjanaghat and that Mahadeo
Pandurang Koshti of Hedau surname was never a resident of
Shendurjanaghat. Further, the Petitioner's claim for cross-
examination of the Vigilance Cell Officer is not maintainable, as
held by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 903/2007 and 904/2007
and in Bharat Gulabsing Thakur vs. State of Mahrashtra, 2010 (6)
ALL MR 248.
10. Shri S.A. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos.3 and 4, Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle,
opposed the petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner was
appointed on 25.04.2005 on an ST reserved post and was directed
to submit a Validity Certificate vide letter dated 13.07.2006.
Despite repeated reminders, the Petitioner failed to comply, on
account of which a charge-sheet under Rule 14 was issued on
30.03.2015. The Petitioner challenged the charge-sheet in Writ
Petition No.2681/2015, whereupon this Court directed stay of
punishment and submission of scrutiny proposal. The Scrutiny
Committee, after two rounds of verification, passed the impugned
order dated 18.07.2022 again invalidating the claim and
authorizing action under Sections 10(1)(2) and 11(1)(2) of the
Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000. It is submitted that the
impugned order is just, proper, and legal, and the Writ Petition
deserves to be rejected.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record. The Petitioner has placed before
this Court a continuous chain of pre-constitutional documents, even
then the Scrutiny Committee declined the claim on the following
grounds, each of which we deal with seriatim :
i. Ground I -- Handwriting discrepancy in Register 1-B: The
Committee concluded that the first three pages of Register 1-B
are fabricated on the basis of its own visual comparison of
handwriting, without obtaining any expert handwriting or
forensic opinion. The Supreme Court in Sayanna v. State of
Maharashtra, 2010 (1) ALL MR 957 (SC) has held that a
Scrutiny Committee is not a handwriting expert and that a
finding of fabrication by mere visual comparison, without expert
opinion, is legally unsustainable. Physical irregularities such as
missing page numbers, blank pages, and non-sequential
admission numbers are the natural consequence of a register
maintained from 1908 to 1923 and stored for over a century,
and cannot, without expert support, amount to proof of
fabrication. This ground accordingly fails.
ii. This Court in Writ Petition No. 788/2021 had already specifically
and categorically dealt with and rejected these very grounds in
Paragraphs 14 and 15, holding as follows:
14. "Now, moving to the entry of 1933, it is stated that the
police vigilance cell could not find a copy of application on
the record of the school, seeking 'Transfer Certificate'. The
other reason for discarding the said entry was that the
complete entry was not found, because the record is very
old and a small corner part of the page having entry 'Hedau'
relating to grand father of the petitioner, has been pulled
apart or torn."
15. "The aforesaid reasons cannot be accepted as valid, while it
is not the case of the Committee that the document of the
year 1933 is bogus, forged or fabricated. In that view of the
matter, we hold that the Committee has not assessed the
documentary evidence available on record in totality and
omitted to consider and appreciate the important piece of
evidence in the form of documents of pre-Constitutional
period, which is having high degree of probative value."
The Scrutiny Committee, in the impugned order dated
18.07.2022, has once again sought to rely upon the very same
grounds in respect of the 1933 document which this Court had
already specifically held to be invalid and legally unacceptable.
iii. Ground II -- Two parallel registers and conflict at Admission
No. 1146: The Committee treated the entry "Bhagwan -- Teli"
at Admission No. 1146 in Register 1-A as a contra entry
against the Petitioner's great grand-father. This is
demonstrably erroneous. "Bhagwan" is an entirely different
individual bearing no genealogical connection to the
Petitioner's family.
This Court in Writ Petition No. 788/2021 had in terms held in
Paragraph 10 that,
"because two admission Registers were
maintained by the school, it cannot be a
sufficient ground to discard the document unless
contrary entry is found in relation to the great
grand father or grand father of the petitioner."
The Committee has, in clear defiance of this binding
direction, treated a stranger's entry as a contra entry
constituting both a manifest error of law and non-compliance
with this Court's direction. Furthermore, assuming that their
exists same discrepancy in the admission register the said act
by no stretch of imagination be attributed to the petitioner as
he had no access to the said registers. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot be put to inconvenience for the act of the
school.
iv. Ground III -- Amit Shankarrao Hedau applying for the same
record: The Committee has itself recorded that no
genealogical link between Amit Shankarrao Hedau and the
Petitioner is established. In the absence of any proven
relationship, the fact that another person traced ancestry to
the same Mahadeo Pandurang is not evidence of fabrication.
Fabrication must be established by positive material, not
speculation.
v. Ground IV -- Adverse "Koshti" entries from 1925 to 1955:
The Committee relied on the 1925 Kotwal Panji entry
(Pandurang Ragho Koshti, Dangrepura, Karanjikar Lane),
1945 and 1947 birth extracts (Mahadev Pandurang, Nandba
Dob, Ganjakhet), the 1951-54 Home Tax Extract, and the
1955 school document recording "Koshti". This Court in Priya
d/o Pravin Parate v. ST Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 180 has held that "Koshti" entries
must be read alongside the profession recorded, as
Halba/Halbi tribals engaged in weaving were traditionally
recorded as "Koshti" by municipal functionaries irrespective of
tribal identity, and such occupational entries cannot negate a
well-supported Halba/Halbi claim.
12. In these circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in
Case No. 6-ST/2015/12706, invalidating the Petitioner's claim to
"Halba" Scheduled Tribe, is perverse, contrary to settled law, and in
non-compliance with the binding direction of this Court in Writ
Petition No.788/2021. This Court further notes that the
departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide
charge-sheet dated 30.03.2015 were founded solely upon the
invalidation of his Scheduled Tribe caste claim by the Scrutiny
Committee. Since the impugned invalidation order dated
18.07.2022 has been quashed and set aside by this Court, the
departmental proceedings initiated consequent thereto are
rendered non-est. The Petitioner has satisfactorily established that
he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, we pass the
following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed
by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, in Case No. 6-ST/2015/12706, invalidating the caste claim
of the Petitioner as belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee is
directed to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner
certifying him as belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
(iv) The departmental proceedings initiated against
the Petitioner by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide charge-sheet dated
30.03.2015, being solely consequential upon the invalidation of the
Petitioner's caste claim, are hereby declared non-est. Further
Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are directed to treat the Petitioner's
service as uninterrupted and regular in all respects and to restore
all consequential service benefits
(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with
no order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/04/2026 19:04:29
