[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ku. Jaya Santosh Thakur vs The S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:3089-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5208 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2023
-----
WRIT PETITION NO. 5208 OF 2023
Ashok Bhaskarrao Wardekar,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ. Retired Government employee.
R/o. Gurudeo Nagar, Mangrulpir Road,
Karanja, Dist. Washim. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee at Yavatmal,
Sai Uttam Vila, Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal,
Through its Member Secretary.
2) Executive Engineer, Special Project,
P.W.D. No.2, Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandeep Marathe, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2023
Ku. Jaya Santosh Thakur, (Wardekar),
Aged 35 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Bypass road, Mangrulpir,
District Washim. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprasipura, Yavatmal,
through its Member Secretary. .... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 03/02/2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :
COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The present
matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by
consent and request of the parties.
3. The petitioners in these petitions are relatives of each
other, hence, both these petitions are decided by this common
judgment and the Writ Petition No.5208/2023 is to be considered as
a lead petition.
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
4. The petitioners herein by these petitions are challenging
the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal dated 28/06/2023 and
dated 06/04/2023, thereby invalidating the petitioners' claim as they
belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted in Serial
No.44 of the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950.
5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5208/2023 was
working as a 'Tracer' in the office of Executive Engineer, Special
Projects, PWD, Daryapur, District Amravati. It is submitted that on
09/07/2013, the petitioner submitted his proposal through the
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, before the respondent-
Scrutiny Committee for verification. The petitioner along with the
proposal, submitted 13 documents including the documents of pre-
independence period. The respondent-Committee served a show
cause notice dated 04/05/2023 to the petitioner about the police
Vigilance Report related to Ku.Jaya Santosh Thakur (Petitioner in
Writ Petition No.2945/2023), who is distinct relative of the
petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on
16.05.2023 and denied the contentions in it. Apart from the pre-
constitutional documents, the petitioner also submitted 11 validity
certificates issued to his blood relatives namely Dhananjay Sanjiv
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
Wardekar, Ajay Ramakrishna Wardekar, Liladhar Jagannath
Wardekar, Vijay Sureshrao Wardekar, Saurabh Rajendra Wardekar,
Advait Ravindra Wardekar, Rajendra Panditrao Wardekar, Mrunmayi
Dhananjay Wardekar, Janvi Dhananjay Wardekar, Ishan Vivekanand
Wardekar, and Vishal Ashok Wardekar.
6. The petitioner has submitted following pre-constitutional
documents in support of his tribe claim:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Kotwal Book extract of Wa- Thakur 15.08.1911
man Thakur
2 Birth - Death Extract of Thakur 25.10.1937
Bhagwanta Thakur
3 Birth - Death Extract of son Thakur 1946
namely sudhakar born to
Bhagwanta Vaman Thakur
4 School leaving Extract of Thakur 31.03.1931
Bhagwant Vamanrao Thakur
5 Service Book Extract of Thakur 01.11.1938
Bhasker Bhagwantrao
Wardekar
6 School leaving Extract of Thakur 01.05.1946
Manohar Bhagwantrao
wardekar
7. It is further submitted that the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner relying
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
upon the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell, which were not
in relation with the petitioner, and neglected the pre-independence
documents and caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives.
The petitioner further submitted that once the Committee, after due
scrutiny, has issued a validity certificate, it has no jurisdiction to
doubt or re-examine the same on its own.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment in Writ Petition No.7327/2024 (Shraddha Sharad
Wardekar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yawatmal) along with connected matter, decided on
21/08/2025.
9. Per contra, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee submitted
that since the first Vigilance enquiry report was not satisfactory, the
matter was again handed over to the Vigilance Cell for conducting re-
inquiry as per the Maharashtra Act, 2001 and the Rules framed
thereunder. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee procured sale deeds
executed between the blood relatives of the petitioner and the
remarks in the sale deeds show that the sale-purchase transactions
were not between the tribal persons, and the said land does not
belong to the tribal community.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
10. The respondent-Committee procured following pre-
constitutional contra entries in respect of the petitioners:
Sr. Description of Document Name Caste Date
No.
1 Kotwal Book Birth A female child Bhat 20.04.1918
Extract (Mauje Madhan) was born to
Narayan
2 Kotwal Book Birth A male child Bhat 14.04.1921
Extract (Mauje Madhan) was born to
Narayan
3 Kotwal Book Birth A male child Bhat 04.05.1912
Extract (Mauje Madhan) was born to
Narayan vald
Tukaram (Bhat)
4 Kotwal Book Birth A female child Bhat 30.05.1921
Extract (Mauje Madhan) was born to
Shesharav
(Bhat)
5 Kotwal Book Birth Ex- A male child Brahma 20.10.1930
tract (Mauje Madhan) was born to Bhat
Gulabrao vald
Balkrushna
Brahma Bhat
(Bhat)
6 Kotwal Book Birth A female child Bhat 01.07.1934
Extract (Mauje Madhan) was born to
Dhondya vald
Yadoji (Bhat)
7 Kotwal Book Birth A female child Bhat 20.09.1936
Extract (Mauje Madhan) namely Shanti
was born to
Tulsiram vald
Yadoji (Bhat)
8 School Record Kamal Bhat 16.04.1942
Admission Register Mahadeorao
9 School Record Kamal Bhat 04.10.1943
Admission Register Mahadeorao
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
(Kasturba Buniyadi
Primary School Madhan)
10 School Record Kamal Bhat 02.07.1947
Admission Register Mahadeorao
(Kasturba Buniyadi
Primary School Madhan)
11. It is further contended by the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee that upon perusal of the documents submitted by the
petitioner, it is revealed that the petitioner and his family are in good
social standing and are living in the mainstream of society. It clearly
shows that the petitioner failed to prove his socio-cultural affinity to
"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. It is further contended that the order
passed by the Scrutiny Committee is well reasoned and no
interference is warranted. All these documents procured by the
Respondent Scrutiny Committee relating to 'Kanzar Bhat' are already
discussed by this Court in para No.18 and 21 of the Writ Petition
No.7327/2024 (Shraddha Sharad Wardekar vs. The Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yawatmal) along with one
connected matter, dated 21/08/2025.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of the
learned AGP and considered the citations relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
13. It is pertinent to note that as many as 11 blood relatives
of the petitioners have already been issued with validity certificates
and the petitioner has placed on record the judgments in writ
petitions through which the validity was granted to his relatives
along with the validity certificates. It would be beneficial to refer the
judgment in the case of Apoorva Nichale Vs Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others {2010(6)Mh.L.J. 401}
wherein this Court in paras 7 and 9 held as under:
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the
course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity
certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of
the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by
the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate
without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the
committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by
fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may
refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the
applicant before it."
"9. In the present case, we find that the committee has
disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs to Kanjar
Bhat after calling the school leaving certificate of petitioner's
father and noticing that the original caste written on it was
Thakur and that was subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat.
The committee observed that the caste has been changed
without complying with the procedure prescribed by Section
48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact,
the caste has been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From
the findings of the committee it appears that the committee
has observed that the change of caste has been done illegally.
Obviously, the committee which decided the caste claim of
the petitioner's sister did not hold the same view, otherwise it
would have refused to grant validity. In the circumstances, we
are of the view that the committee which has expressed a
doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and
has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
arrived at a different conclusion. 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."
14. We have also seen the documents, on which, the Scrutiny
Committee has placed reliance and also the documents discarded
despite having great probative value. If the old documents prior to
1950 are seen, there are documents of the years 1911, 1931, 1937,
1938, and 1946. All the blood relatives shown in these documents,
admittedly are appearing in the genealogy. Their tribe is shown as
"Thakur'. Moreover, there are 11 validity certificates issued in favour
of the blood relatives placed on record. The validity certificates issued
are in view of the various orders passed by this Court. In spite of this
factual position, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee bent upon to
discard the claims of the petitioners on the ground that, the persons
whose documents have been collected, showing their caste as 'Kanzar
Judgment 10 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
Bhat', deliberately not mentioned in the genealogy. It appears that the
Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the validities issued in
favour of relatives of the petitioner nor considered the reply filed by
petitioner, wherein he has specifically denied the relationship with
the persons, whose documents are collected by vigilance showing
different entries.
15. It is indeed surprising that the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee has ventured to draw unwarranted inferences and
attribute relationships with alleged unknown strangers to the
petitioners. Such a portrayal made solely to discard the petitioners'
claim, is wholly unsustainable in law and suffers from patent
illegality, being erroneous on the very face of the record.
16. Since the issue involved in the present petition has
repeatedly been considered by this Court in Writ Petition
Nos.5805/2017 (Saurabh s/o Rajendra Wardekar v. The Scheduled
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee) and 5788/2017 (Advait s/o
Ravindra Wardekar v. The Scheduled Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee), as well as in Writ Petition Nos.7327/2024 and
7329/2024 (supra) (decided on 21/08/2025), all of which pertain to
Judgment 11 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
the blood relatives of the petitioners, the controversy is no longer res
integra.
17. In view of the settled position emerging from the
aforesaid decisions, we find it appropriate to allow the present
petition and pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned orders passed by the respondent-Scheduled
Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, dated
28/06/2023 in Case No.5-ST/2013/12046 (Writ Petition
No.5208 of 2023) and order dated 06/04/2023 in Case
No.5/502/Edu/112020/168198 (Writ Petition No. 2945 of
2023) are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is held and declared that the petitioners have duly
established that they belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The
respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of
"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners within a period of
four weeks.
Judgment 12 J-WP No.5208.2023+1.odt
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak/Khunte
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/02/2026 18:21:27
