[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Yogeshwar S/O Shripat Parate And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Chief ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:1744-DB
wp 3255-2022.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3255 OF 2022
1. Mr. Yogeshwar S/o Shripat Parate,
Age- 51 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
R/o. Plot No. 109, Jaysing Ley-Out,
Panchwati, Katol, Tahsil- Katol, District-
Nagpur 441302
2. Ms. Srushti D/o Yogeshwar Parate,
Age- 18 years, Occ. - Nil Student, R/o. Plot
No. 109, Jaysing Ley-Out, Panchwati,
Katol, Tahsil- Katol, District- Nagpur
441302
3. Ms. Sanika D/o Vijay Parate,
Age-17 years, Occ. Nil -Student, through
its natural guardian father Mr. Vijay S/o
Shripat Parate R/o. Plot No. 18/B,
Kirnapure Ley-Out, Sainagar, Amravati,
District- Amravati 444607
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary, 6th Floor,
Main Building, Madam Cama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai PIN 400032
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
through its Member Secretary, Adiwasi
Vikas Bhawn, Amravati Road, Giripeth,
Nagpur PIN 440001,
wp 3255-2022.odt 2/9
3. Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
through Chief Executive Officer, Office
at Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001
4. District Education Officer (Primary),
Zilha Parishad Nagpur, Administrative
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur PIN
440001,
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri S.D. Borkute, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.V. Narale, AGP for respondent/State
Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for respondent No.3
None for respondent No.4 though served
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner No. 2 and
uncle of the petitioner No. 3. The present petition challenges the
order passed by the respondent No.2, the Scheduled Tribe Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in case Nos. Case Nos.
6/ST/2013/12441, 6/504/Edu/062021/240295, and
6/504/Edu/062021/240230, on 15.11.2021. The petitioner No. 1
is a primary school teacher posted at Zilla Parishad Primary School,
Nagpur, and since he was appointed on the post reserved for the
Scheduled Tribe, his caste certificate was sent to the Scrutiny
Committee for validation. The said Scrutiny Committee referred the
application to the Police Vigilance Cell, and accordingly, a report
was submitted on 05.07.2017. The petitioner was issued a show
cause notice, since some contra entries were found in the Vigilance
Enquiry. The petitioner No. 1 submitted his reply on 13.12.2017.
On the instructions of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner
submitted an affidavit containing a family tree and also a certified
copy of the admission extract dated 10.11.1910, along with other
documents.
4. Likewise, the validity proposals of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3
were forwarded by the respective educational institutions on
10.06.2021 and 07.05.2021. All the three proposals, since
belonging to the same family, were decided by the Scrutiny
Committee by a common order thereby rejecting all proposals. The
said common order is impugned in the present petition.
5. We have heard Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri S.D. Borkute, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.V.
Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1, 2, and Shri K.S. Malokar, learned Counsel for respondent
No.3.
6. The learned Senior Counsel, after taking us through the
record of the matter, submits that the order impugned is patently
illegal, and it fails to take into consideration the fact that the
primary or secondary evidence of public record cannot be held to
be void or forged as has been concluded by the Scrutiny
Committee. He further submits that the forefathers of the
petitioners were not residing within the area restrictions for 'Halba'
Scheduled Tribe before the Amendment Act of 1976, which came
into force on 18.09.1976, and therefore, could not acquire the
status of Scheduled Tribe. It is his submission, therefore, that the
entire approach of the Scrutiny Committee, and more particularly,
while discarding the oldest document of the year 1910, is
unsustainable in law, and therefore, cannot withstand the scrutiny
of law. He thus prays that the order of the Scrutiny Committee be
set aside and validity certificates be issued in favour of the
petitioners.
7. Per Contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
opposes the contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel. He
submits that there are various contra entries as have been found in
the Vigilance Enquiry and are reflecting in the order impugned. He
submits that the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of those entries,
has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioners could not
prove their claim for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe and was right in
rejecting the validation proposals.
8. We have perused the record and have appreciated the
contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective
parties. The oldest document on which the petitioners are laying
claim is the admission register of one Chhotya S/o Gokulya, whose
name finds place in the family tree, and he is the great-grandfather
of the petitioner No. 1. The reason for discarding the said
document is that, as per the Committee, the document (which is at
page No. 110 of the record), there is a variance in the admission
number, as also the fact that at the relevant time, the writing was in
'taak' and not by pen as has been found. The Scrutiny Committee
also states that there was a difference in handwriting way back in
the year 1910. Thus, as per the version of the Scrutiny Committee,
the oldest document, even though is showing the caste as 'Halba',
the veracity of it is doubtful, and therefore it has chosen to discard
the same.
9. The reason for discarding the said documents, in our
opinion, is totally flimsy, and it seems that the Scrutiny Committee
is finding novel ways of rejecting oldest documents. It is a settled
principle of law that the oldest documents have more probative
value, and therefore, the documents have to be scrutinized in the
light of this proposition. The reasons for discarding the said
document as mentioned supra are legally unsustainable, since the
Scrutiny Committee is not an expert in the matter, and secondly,
there is no corroborative material on record to infer as has been
done by the Scrutiny Committee. We have perused the said
document, which clearly shows that the caste of the great-
grandfather, namely, Chhotya, is 'Halba', and the relationship is also
depicted in the genealogy. Furthermore, this fact was brought to
the notice of the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner by filing a
reply to the notice of the Vigilance Cell, but the same has not been
considered.
10. Furthermore, the other document which supports the claim
of the petitioner as 'Halba' is the school leaving certificate of the
same person, i.e., Chhotya S/o Gokhalya, which also depicts his
caste as 'Halba'. Even though there is variance in the date of birth
of the said person, that cannot be a reason to discard the
document, more particularly when the caste is clearly shown as
'Halba'.
11. The next document on which the petitioner is relying is of
one Shripat Narayan, and it dates back to 01.07.1946. Even the
said document has been discarded on the ground that there is
variance in the date of birth. However, as we have already observed
above, that only because there is variance in the date of birth
cannot be a reason to discard the document, more particularly
when the caste is shown as 'Halba'. These pre-constitutional
documents have more probative value in view of the law settled by
this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time.
12. Thus, in our view, the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee
in discarding the claim of the validation of the petitioners cannot
withstand the scrutiny of law. It is also to be noted that, as per the
Scrutiny Committee, there is nothing on record to show that the
forefathers of the petitioners went to reside in Ashti, district
Wardha. However, as already stated in the reply to the vigilance, as
also the averments in the petition specifically state that this fact has
been stated in the said reply by the petitioner. Thus, the Scrutiny
Committee was incorrect in recording the findings and discarding
the claim of the petitioners. It is thus clear that the order of the
Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable in law, and the same is liable
to be interfered with, it being perverse. We therefore pass the
following order:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 15.11.2021, passed by the
respondent No.2, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, in Case Nos. 6/ST/2013/12441,
6/504/Edu/062021/240295 & 6/504/Edu/062021/240230, is
quashed and set aside.
iii) It is held that the petitioners belong to the 'Halba' Scheduled
Tribe.
iv) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, is directed to issue validity certificates in favour
of the petitioners within four weeks from the date of this order.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
