Sangita D/O Sudhakar Nagpure vs The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 680 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sangita D/O Sudhakar Nagpure vs The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 21 January, 2026

Author: M.S. Jawalkar

Bench: M.S. Jawalkar

2026:BHC-NAG:1014-DB


                       WP No.3887.17.odt                                                                   1/22


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3887/2017

                       1.      Sangita D/o Sudhakar Nagpure,
                               Aged about 45 years, Occ - Service,
                               R/o. Riddhi-Siddhi Apartment,
                               Balaji Colony, Shivaji Nagar,
                               Paratwada, District - Amravati - 444 805.
                               AND
                               C/o Shri Sudhakar Rajaramji Nagpure
                               Gopalnagar, Paratwada,
                               Tahsil : Achalpur,
                               District : Amravati.

                                                                                               ... PETITIONER

                                                 ...VERSUS...

                       1.      The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
                               Scrutiny Committee, Sana
                               Building, Chaprashipura,
                               Amravati through its Member
                               Secretary.

                       2.      Directorate of Agriculture
                               through its Desk Officer, M.S.
                               Central Building, Pune.

                                                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
                       Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondents/State
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CORAM :   SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
                                         NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                               RESERVED ON     : 06th JANUARY, 2025.
                               PRONOUNCED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2026.
 WP No.3887.17.odt                                               2/22


JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of learned Counsels for the parties.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India challenges order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the respondent

no. 1 that is the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati, thereby rejecting the validity certificate to the

petitioner.

3. The facts which are more or less undisputed can best be

stated in a narrow compass as under.

4. The petitioner according to the petition has obtained Master's

degree in Science (Agricultural) in the First Division from the

Punjabrao Krushi Vidyapith, Akola and had applied for the post of

Class II in Maharashtra Agricultural Service pursuant to the

advertisement which was issued by the Maharashtra Public Service

Commission. The said post is a class II post under the respondent

no. 2 i.e. Directorate of Agricultural. After being called for interview

the petitioner was selected as a candidate belonging to the

Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner was thereafter informed

that she being a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category

unless she produces caste validity certificate which to be issued by

the respondent no. 1, it would not be possible to issue an

appointment order. Thus, the caste certificate produced by the

petitioner dated 26.07.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate,

Morshi, District Amravati, certifying that the petitioner belongs to

Halbi / Halba Scheduled Tribe was referred by the respondent no. 2

to the respondent no. 1 Committee in accordance with the

provisions of The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,

De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes And Special Backward Category (Regulation Of

Issuance And Verification Of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

5. The respondent no. 1 committee thereafter conducted an

enquiry through its Vigilance Cell and obtained a vigilance report.

Since the vigilance report was not in favour of the petitioner, the

committee held that the certificate produced by the petitioner is

invalid. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a

Writ Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1808/1998.

The said petition was finally heard on 03.07.2014 wherein this

Court remanded back the matter to the Committee to decide it

within a period of seven months.

6. In pursuance to the order of this Court the petitioner applied

afresh on 31.07.2014 along with all the relevant documents. The

petitioner in support of her claim had filed a following documents

as stated in the petition.

Sr. Annex Particulars of Documents Date No. No. Copy of the extract of births/deaths register issued in favour of the female 1 child born to Rajaram Sadashiv Halbi / 18.10.1933 P-12 Halba, Sarmaspura, the grand father of the petitioner.

Copy of the extract of births/deaths register issued in favour of the female 6.1.1920 child born to Rajaram Sadashiv Halbi / 2 P-13 Halba, Sarmaspura, the grand father of 8.1.1920 the petitioner by the Municipal Council, Achalpur.

Copy of the extract of births/deaths register issued in favour of the female 3 25.6.1925 P-14 child born to Sadashiv Fakirji Halbi / Halba, grand father of the petitioner.

Sr. Annex Particulars of Documents Date No. No. Copy of the extract of Records of Rights issued in favour of Shri Sadashiv Fakirji Halbi / Halba, R/o: Sarmaspura, 4 27.4.1932 P-15 Achalpur issued by the Settlement Officer, grand father of the petitioner's father.

7. In addition to this the petitioner filed seven more documents

in support or her caste claim as belonging to Halbi / Halba

Scheduled Tribe Category.

 Sr.                                                             Annex
                    Particulars of Documents             Date
 No.                                                              No.
         Copy of Form A(a) Births Register extract
     1   showing female child born on 7.5.1940 7.5.1940          P-22
         issued by
         Copy of caste certificate issued by the

Executive Magistrate, Achalpur issued in 2 13.05.1940 P-24 favour of Smt. Lakmibai W/o Rajaram Nagpure, grand mother of the petitioner.

Copy of Form-A extract of birth register issued by Municipal Council, Achalpur, in 3 26.10.1944 P-25 respect of the petitioner's grand father, Rajaram Sadashive Nagpure.

8. However since no decision was taken by the Scrutiny

Committee over her application, the petitioner was constrained to

file another Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5130/2016 for

direction to the respondent no. 1 Committee to decide her caste

claim as early as possible and within a stipulated period. This Court

vide its order dated 05.10.2016 directed the respondent no. 1

Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a

period of six months.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner received notices from the Scrutiny

Committee asking her to appear and submit documents in support

of her claim. Ultimately, the committee passed an order on

21.04.2017 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and

cancelling the cast certificate dated 27.06.1991. It is this order of

the Scrutiny Committee which is challenged in the present petition

on grounds as stated in the petition.

10. We have heard Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. N. R. Patil, learned AGP who appears for the

respondents/State.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

committee has grossly erred while invalidating the caste claim of

the petitioner and the findings recorded for the said invalidation are

totally based on irrelevant consideration.

12. He further submits that there is no dispute regarding the

petitioner producing all the documents as mentioned supra, the

genuineness, authenticity and existence has neither been gone into

by the said Committee nor there is any finding regarding the

documents being false, bogus or non-existent. Thus, it is the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said

Committee has failed to apply its mind to all those documents.

13. He further submits that the petitioner comes from Achalpur

City which is a border area of Melghat and is earmarked for Halba /

Halbi tribals in the map of tribal area prepared by the State

Government. The Achalpur city was included in the tribal area,

prior to the removal of area restriction in the year 1976. The

Committee, in the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner has ignored this material aspect leading to invalidation

which cannot make stand the scrutiny of law. The learned counsel

for the petitioner further submits that the entire basis of

invalidation of her cast claim is regarding the alleged failure on the

petitioner to establish the affinity test. This finding is totally

erroneous as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it

has been now well settled that affinity test is not a litmus test for

consideration of caste claim. In totality the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the order of the committee is vitiated for

non-consideration of these material aspects and it ought to have

validated the caste claim.

14. Per contra, learned AGP submits that when the vigilance

officer visited to verify the birth extract dated 18.10.1933 and

24.03.1944 related to Rajaram Sadashiv who happens to be grand

father of the petitioner, the Nagar Parishad Achalpur informed the

vigilance officer that the said record is not available. He further

submits that after receipt of the vigilance report the answering

respondent has found adverse entry of the petitioner's blood

relations belonging to Koshti caste from 1921 to 1974 by taking us

through the reply filed by the respondent no. 1, and more

particularly the chart therein, the AGP submits that there are

adverse entries in the form of Koshti the said charge is reproduced

as under:-

Relation Sr. Date of Name Documents type Caste with No. document petitioner Sonya S/o Great 1 Fakirya Death Extract Koshti 09.10.1921 Grandfather Koshti Birth extract Fakiriya S/o (male child Great-Great 2 Koshti 09.09.1936 Mulaji Koshti born to Grandfather Fakiriya) Birth extract Rajaram S/o (male child 3 Sadashiv Koshti 21.04.1938 Grandfather born to Koshti Rajaram) Birth extract Pandurag S/o (female child Cousin 4 Sadashiv Koshti 24.02.1944 Baji born to Grandfather Koshti Pandurag) Birth extract Ramdas S/o (female child Cousin 5 Sadashiv Koshti 03.08.1944 Nalini born to Grandfather Koshti Ramdas) Tukaram S/o Paternal 6 Pandurang School extract Koshti 09.04.1948 Uncle Nagpure Birth extract Fakiriya (female child Great-Great 7 Koshti 17.11.1948 Mukaji Koshti Tulshi born to Grandfather Fakiriya)

15. He further submits that the names of blood relatives

mentioned hersel6 ptf by the petitioner repeating the caste as Koshti

and some of the entries being of pre - Constitutional period have

greater probative value. He therefore submits that the petitioner has

failed to prove her tribe claim on the basis of documents and has

suppressed the fact regarding the documents of her blood relatives

which were found during the vigilance enquiry pertaining to 'Koshti'

caste. He therefore, prays for rejection of the petition.

16. In the light of these facts, we have appreciated the

controversy involved in the present petition and have also gone

through original record produced for our perusal by the learned

AGP. As can be seen from the order of the Scrutiny Committee

impugned in the petition, in para 2 thereof the Scrutiny Committee

has reproduced a list filed by the petitioner in support of her caste

claim document at serial no. 13 is the transfer certificate of one

Rajaram Sadashiv which is the oldest document dated 14.10.1910

this person, according to the petitioner, is her grand father. In the

said document the caste is mentioned as Halbi.

17. The next document is dated 24.03.1944 which is a birth

certificate of Rajaram Sadashiv which also states his caste to be

Halbi. Furthermore, as stated above and has also been recorded by

the Scrutiny Committee the documents of the blood relatives of the

petitioner depict a name as 'Koshti'. The relevant discussion is found

with respect to the issue no. 1 in the order impugned. The Scrutiny

Committee finds that the documents at serial numbers mentioned

therein depict the cast as 'Halbi' and not 'Halba'.

18. Thereafter, the documents at serial nos. 29 and 30 which are

extract of birth and death of Rajaram Sadashiv and Sadashi Fakira

even though pre- Constitutional documents record the caste as

'Halbi'. It therefore records a finding that the said documents show

contradictory entries this fact is also clear from the documents filed

on record by the petitioner himself. The Scrutiny Committee further

records a finding that the entry of 'Halbi' in the said documents

does not support the case of the petitioner.

19. It is a matter well settled that the presidential order of 1950

is to be read as it is and wherein 'Halba' and 'Halbi' are mentioned

as different Scheduled Tribes. It is relevant to point out that the

tribe 'Halba' was a singular entry at serial no. 13 in part IV of the

Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, which

was issued by the Hon'ble President of Indian in exercise of powers

under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution, for the State of Madhya

Pradesh. Thereafter, by way of an amendment i.e. Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, which come

into force with effect from 25.09.1956, Part IV of the Schedule for

the State of Madhya Pradesh was amended by replacing entry No.

13 'Halba' with entry 13 'Halba or Halbi'. Thereafter, by the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,

1976 with effect from 18.09.1976, the Schedule IX came to be

amended by deleting the original Entry 13 and inserting Entry 19 as

'Halba, Halbi' for the State of Maharashtra pursuant to the States

Reorganization Act. Therefore, the fact remains that entry no. 19 in

Schedule IX for the State of Maharashtra of the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, stood amended as Entry No. 19

'Halba, Halbi'.

20. The punctuation mark COMMA (,) was inserted between the

two Tribes 'Halba and Halbi', in Entry No. 19 Part IX in the second

schedule of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 by the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,

1976 with effect from 18.09.1976. The importance of the said

punctuation mark found in presidential entries and the relevance

thereof is no more res-integra and as held by Full Bench of this

Court in Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad and others Vs. Deputy

Director and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others, reported in 2023 MhLJ

Online 130, the punctuation mark COMMA (,) occurring in the

name of each tribe, functions as a tool to indicate to readers a

certain separation of words, phrases or ideas in order to prevent

misleading the writer's intended meaning. This is also considered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra and others vs.

mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in 2006 (3) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 407

in which it has been held that the punctuation mark COMMA (,)

between one entry and another in the group signifies that each one

of them is deemed to be a separate Scheduled Tribe itself. From the

authoritative judicial pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court

and the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, it is clear that the

entries "Halba and Halbi" though separated by punctuation mark

COMMA (,) are not synonyms with each other and they are

separate and distinct.

21. We had initially closed the matter for judgment after hearing

the learned counsels for the parties on 06.01.2026, but since we

had some doubts, we again placed the matter in the Court for

further hearing and accordingly we have heard the matter on

17.01.2026. On the said day the learned counsel for the petitioner

in support of his contention has placed a compilation of judgments

on record in support of his submissions.

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us

notification issued in the year 1950 which we have, discussed in the

above para. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on a judgment (2006) 4 SCC 98, State of

Maharashtra and Others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, where the

question was "whether the "Mana" community in the State of

Maharashtra is a sub-tribe of "Gond" and is a Scheduled Tribe or

not?. While answering this question, after discussing the relevant

case laws, the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to hold that "Mana" is

not a Sub-tribe of "Gond' but a separate tribe by itself and is a

Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter,

placed reliance on judgment delivered by co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition No. 597 of 2021, Anand s/o Dattatraya

Kumbhare Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Certificates Verification

Committee, Amravati And Another where the Division Bench

observed that 'Halba/ Haalbi' shown in Entry No. 19 of the

Scheduled Tribe Order and are commonly used as synonyms of each

other. In some of the documents of pre-consitutional era relied upon

by the petitioner the entries of 'Haalbi' are shown. Thereafter,

relying on a earlier Division Bench judgment in Tejas Ramsh Katole

Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and

others in Writ Petition No. 3758 of 2020, the Division Bench

recorded that the same has not been found to be very material. It

went on to observe that the entries are in vernacular and a minor

difference would not be material. Furthermore, it noted that

relationship of the petitioner with his predecessors as was indicated

in the family tree is not seriously disputed by the Vigilance Cell. It

therefore, went on to set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee

and held that the petitioner has proved that he belongs to 'Halba'

Scheduled Tribe.

23. The next judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is in Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2018, Ajay

Narayan Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others wherein the

Division Bench relying on Anand Katole Vs. Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribes Claim, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 held

that the affinity test can be used as corroborative piece of evidence

and it cannot be treated as litmus test and went on to set aside the

order of the Scrutiny Committee. The next judgment on which

reliance is placed in Writ Petition No. 5293 of 2013, Sanjay S/o

Rama Nandanwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others wherein

the Division Bench traced the history of the Entry No. 13 'Halba or

Halbi'. The next judgment on which reliance is placed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is Shubham S/o Sanjay

Nandanwar Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati And Others reported in 2021(1) Mh.L.J. 379

where the petitioner claimed to belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe

which was invalidated, in this judgment also the Division Bench set

aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee.

24. The next judgment which would be relevant in the present

matter is of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale Vs. State of Maharashtra And

Others reported in 2024(6) Mh.L.J. 670 where the claim was

regarding 'Tokre Koli'. The Division Bench after appreciating the

entries relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee held after relying on

earlier judgment of this Court in Milind Sharad Katware and others

Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 572

that Admittedly, the tribe 'Koli' which was initially included in other

backward class was subsequently, included in special backward

class. As against this, 'Tokre Koli' or 'Dhor Koli' are included in entry

at serial No. 28 of Scheduled tribes and obviously, therefore, Koli

entries would be inconsistent with the claim of 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre

Koli'. In para 21 and 22 this Court held as under :-

"21. True it is that there is no clear entry of 'Tokre Koli' which is the claim of the petitioner of the pre- constitutional period and the word 'To' seems to have been added at a later point of time. However, we have already considered the aspect as to whether claim of 'Tokre Koli' and that of 'Dhore Koli' or 'Koli Dhor' could be treated as inconsistent, in the matter of Nilesh Sonawane (supra). We pointed out that entry No. 28 of schedule of Tribe Order, 1950 mentioned four tribes - 'Koli Dhor', 'Tokre Koli', 'Kolcha' and 'Kholga'. If the legislature in its wisdom has put 'Koli Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli' in the same entry, the claim of 'Tokre Koli' cannot be treated as inconsistent with that of 'Koli Dhor'.

22. There is one more aspect which needs to be emphasized in this context. A person would not derive any additional advantage or benefit by being described as 'Tokre Koli' instead of 'Koli Dhor' or vice versa. This would be another reason not to treat such claims to be inconsistent. Therefore, when, as is mentioned herein-

above, there is acceptable documentary evidence of pre- constitutional period wherein the petitioner's forefathers were described as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Koli Dhor', the committee could not have refused to extend its benefits to her when she has been claiming to be a 'Tokre Koli'."

25. The same finding has been recorded in a subsequent

judgment reported in 2025(1) Mh.L.J. 741, Laxman S/o Subhash

Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and in para 17 it was

observed as under :-

17. With utmost respect, the observations (supra) in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale would clearly demonstrate that the documentary evidence was analyzed and inter alia it was observed that a person would not derive any additional advantage or benefit by being described as 'Tokre Koli' instead of 'Koli Dhor' or vice versa, obviously, as both these tribes find place at the same serial No. 28 of the Schedule of the Constitutional notification, 1950. Since it is a matter of appreciation of evidence, the observations in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra), as we have reiterated herein above, is a matter of proof on the principle of preponderance of probability and it is in that context it was observed by the division bench in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra), which course we seek to follow, when there are favourable entries may be of 1952, onwards wherein the petitioner's grandfather and father were described as 'Tokre Koli' in the school record. It is not a matter that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate petitioner's claim. To repeat, even though the petitioner's forefathers were described in the birth record, right from 1919, during the pre-

constitutional era as 'Dhor Koli', the petitioner's family was not to derive any additional advantage by seeking to change the description in the post-constitutional period as 'Tokre Koli'

when the notification issued under Articles 341 and 342, enlisted both these tribes at the same serial number 28. In these peculiar circumstances, as was done in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra), according to us rightly so, the observation and conclusion of the committee in treating 'Dhor Koli' entries of the pre-constitutional period as contrary to the petitioner's claim of 'Tokre Koli' would not be a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances. A man would indulge in such manipulation if he would want to derive some advantage, which otherwise would not have been available to him. Even if the petitioner's ancestors were subsequently described in the post-constitutional period as 'Tokre Koli', they could have been alleged to have done so consciously had it been a fact that only 'Tokre Koli' was notified as a scheduled tribe and not 'Koli Dhor'. If they were to derive the benefit of constitutional notification enlisting the tribes, they would have happily continued to describe them as 'Koli Dhor' for deriving the benefit of reservation. It is in such peculiar state of affairs that according to us, the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Milind and Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (supra) would not be applicable to the fact situation of the matter.

26. The next judgment relied on is 2025(2) Mh.L.J. 536, Gauri

d/o Mohan Nadge Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati and another wherein the Division Bench after

holding that the Tribes 'Halba and Halbi' are different Scheduled

Tribes, went on to direct the Scrutiny Committee to issue a validity

certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to 'Halbi'

Scheduled Tribe.

27. We have appreciated all these judgments. As can be seen

from the order of the Scrutiny Committee which is impugned in the

present petition, the oldest entry is a school leaving certificate of

Rajaram Sadashiv who happens to be the grand father of the

petitioner and is dated 14.10.1910. Furthermore, admittedly, the

cousins of the petitioner have been granted validity certificate in the

name of 'Halbi'.

28. Judgments referred to supra and and more particularly the

judgment of Gauri d/o Mohan Nadge Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and another (supra) , co-

ordinate Bench of this Court after finding that the petitioner herein

doesn't belong to 'Halba' but belongs to 'Halbi' on the basis of

documents referred to by the Scrutiny Committee, went on to direct

the Committee to issue the validity certificate of 'Halbi' Scheduled

Tribe. Even in the present case, the oldest document as mentioned

supra is of 1910 and thereafter, the birth certificate of the same

person i.e. Rajaram Sadashiv who happens to be the grand father of

the petitioner is also depicting the caste 'Halbi'. Even the extract of

birth's and death's of the said person which is dated 18.10.1933 is

showing the caste 'Halbi'. The reasons for discarding these

documents having more probative value is that they do not depict

the caste 'Halba' as claimed by the petitioner. It is worthwhile to

mention that even the Vigilance Cell has found documents the

oldest being of 06.01.1920 of one Sadashiv Fakirji who happens to

be the great grand father of the petitioner and is dated 06.01.1920

depicting the caste 'Halbi'.

29. If these oldest documents having more probative value are

perused they being of pre-constitutional era and before the

notification of the Hon'ble President, it can safely be inferred that

even though the petitioner has failed to prove is caste 'Halba', there

was ample material on record to show that he belongs to caste

'Halbi'. As stated above and in the light of these judgments referred

to supra, since the entries 'Halba' and 'Halbi' found a place in the

same column, therefore, admittedly the person like petitioner would

not derive any additional advantage or benefit by being described as

'Halba' instead of 'Halbi' as they are on the same pedestal. Thus, by

taking into consideration all these aspect we are of the following

opinion that the petitioner has proved his caste to be 'Halbi' and not

'Halba'. We therefore, pass the following order :-

ORDER

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 21.04.2017 at Annexure-P-33 to

the petition passed by the respondent No. 1, the Scheduled Tribe

Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby quashed

and set aside.

iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to 'Halbi'

Scheduled Tribe category and the Scrutiny committee i.e.

respondent no. 1 is directed to issue a validity certificate of 'Halbi' in

favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of this

order.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Shubham