[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O Mallaiah Boduwar vs The District Caste Certificate ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:4423-DB
wp 3487-2020.odt 1/15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3487 OF 2020
Madhukar S/o Mallaiah Boduwar,
aged about 45 years, Occ-Service,
r/o House No.2118, City Survey No. 872,
Tahsil-Aheri, District- Gadchiroli
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The District Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Gadchiroli
through its Member Secretary,
Office at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Samajik Nyay Bhawan, I.T.I. Square,
LIC Road, Gadchiroli
2. The Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
through its Chief Executive Officer
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Madhur Deo, Advocate for petitioner
Ms H.S. Dhande, AGP for respondent/State
Shri J.S. Mokadam and Shri G.S. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.03.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of parties.
2. The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition, challenging the order dated 31.03.2020, whereby the
respondent No. 1, District Caste Certificate Verification Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the "Scrutiny Committee'), Gadchiroli,
has revoked the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner, holding that it is a false document. The petitioner has
further prayed to issue direction to the respondent No. 2, Zilla
Parishad, Gadchiroli (Employer), not to terminate the services of
the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order.
3. The petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed as
Health Worker (Male) by respondent No. 2, Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli, vide appointment order dated 17.08.1992 through the
Employment Exchange. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of
Health Assistant (Male) on 29.12.2001 and subsequently to the
post of Health Superintendent on 23.06.2020. The petitioner is
presently serving on the said post. According to him, the original
appointment order does not specify whether his appointment was
made against the open category or a reserved category.
4. It is the petitioner's contention that his name was sponsored
by the Employment Exchange along with other candidates, and he
had secured the highest marks in the selection process, standing
first in the order of merit. The petitioner submits that he only
recently obtained a copy of the relevant note-sheet pertaining to
the recruitment process, wherein his appointment was shown
under the NT category. He asserts that he had no knowledge earlier
that his appointment was treated as being under a reserved
category.
5. The petitioner further submits that his caste claim was
forwarded for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Division, Chandrapur. After examining the documents and other
material on record, the Committee validated his caste claim as
belonging to Beldar-NT and issued a Caste Validity Certificate vide
order dated 21.10.2011. The petitioner contends that the said
certificate was granted after due scrutiny and after the enactment
of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, OBC and SBC
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000').
6. Subsequently, the caste claims of the petitioner's children
were forwarded to the Committee for validation, relying upon the
petitioner's validity certificate. During the course of verification, the
Committee issued a show cause notice dated 04.11.2019, stating
cancellation of the petitioner's validity certificate on the ground
that the school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father, namely
Malayya Ramayya Boduwar, appeared to be suspicious. The same is
also reflected in the Vigilance Cell Report dated 16.10.2019.
7. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted
a written explanation denying the allegations. He stated that he
was not aware that such a school leaving certificate of his father
had been placed on record while obtaining his caste validity
certificate on 21.10.2011. According to him, the matter was
handled by the husband of his elder sister, who had acted as his
guardian. He further pointed out that he had earlier filed an
affidavit before the Committee stating that he possessed no
documentary record pertaining to his father.
8. Despite the explanation, respondent No. 1, Scrutiny
Committee, passed the impugned order, thereby revoking the
petitioner's caste validity certificate on the ground that the school
leaving certificate of his father was a fabricated document and that
the petitioner had failed to establish that his family was ordinarily
resident in Maharashtra prior to the relevant date of 21.11.1961.
The petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the
Committee are erroneous and were made without giving him
proper notice regarding the issue of residence.
9. Consequent upon rejection of the caste claim, respondent No.
2, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli (Employer), issued a show cause notice
dated 10.11.2020 stating termination of the petitioner's services.
The petitioner submitted his reply stating that his initial
appointment was not against a reserved category.
10. Aggrieved by the revocation of the caste validity certificate
by respondent No. 1, Scrutiny Committee, and the subsequent
apprehension of termination of his services as Health
Superintendent with respondent No. 2, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
(Employer), the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief.
11. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader
submits that after due examination of the caste claims of the
petitioner's children, the order of invalidation was passed as they
failed to establish their caste claim by producing cogent
documentary evidence. It is submitted that the children had relied
upon the caste validity certificate issued to their father by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Chandrapur, along with
certain other documents. However, the Committee found that the
documents produced by them were insufficient to establish their
caste as well as residence proof prior to the cut-off date prescribed
under law.
12. It is further submitted that while examining the caste claim
of the petitioner's children, the respondent Committee scrutinized
the documents produced by them and found that most of the
documents were identical to those earlier submitted by the
petitioner while seeking validation of his caste claim. The
Committee therefore considered it necessary to verify the
documents which formed the basis for issuance of the petitioner's
caste validity certificate, so as to ascertain whether there existed
any concurrent documentary evidence supporting the caste claim of
the petitioner's children.
13. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that
during such verification, it was noticed that, except for one
document, namely the school leaving certificate of the petitioner's
father, Mallaya Ramayya Boduwar, issued by the Headmaster of
Zilla Parishad Primary School, Tekdatala, the remaining documents
were identical to those produced earlier by the petitioner. The said
School Leaving Certificate recorded the admission date as
20.07.1951, the date of birth as 13.05.1945, and the caste as
"Kapewar". The Committee therefore proceeded to verify the
authenticity of the said document.
14. It is further submitted that although the said school leaving
certificate had earlier been relied upon by the then Scrutiny
Committee while granting caste validity to the petitioner, the
document had not been subjected to verification through the
Vigilance Cell at that time. Upon verification by the Vigilance Cell,
the concerned officer visited the school at Tekdatala and examined
the original admission and leaving registers maintained by the
institution.
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the
Vigilance Cell found that the relevant register containing entries
from Sr. Nos. 1 to 533 was not available in the school records. The
available register commenced from Sr. No. 534, wherein the date of
birth of the student at that entry was recorded as 04.04.1920. In
contrast, the certificate relied upon by the petitioner referred to
Dakhal Kharij Sr. No. 345 with a date of birth of 13.05.1945.
According to the respondent Committee, such discrepancy rendered
the document highly improbable and indicated that the school
leaving certificate produced by the petitioner was fabricated.
16. The Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the
petitioner himself admitted before the Committee that the said
school leaving certificate of his father was not connected with him
and that he was unaware as to who had produced the said
document along with his proposal for verification of caste claim.
Apart from the said document, the petitioner had relied only upon
his own school leaving certificate of the year 1973, which according
to respondent No. 1, Scrutiny Committee, is insufficient to establish
his caste claim, particularly in the absence of any documentary
evidence pertaining to the pre-constitutional period.
17. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the
respondent Committee is duly empowered to re-examine the
validity certificate issued earlier when it is found that the same has
been relied upon by blood relatives and where circumstances
indicate that such certificate might have been obtained on the basis
of false or fabricated documents. It is pointed out that the
petitioner's validity certificate was earlier issued by a Committee
having jurisdiction over both Gadchiroli and Chandrapur districts,
whereas a separate Scrutiny Committee for Gadchiroli district was
subsequently constituted from 21.11.2016.
18. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner's claim was re-
verified in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court
in Apoorva Nichale v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1504
of 2010). The Committee granted sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner to substantiate his caste claim; however, he failed to
discharge the burden cast upon him. The learned Additional
Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the impugned order
revoking the petitioner's caste validity certificate is in consonance
with the provisions of the relevant statute and rules, and the
present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
19. We have heard Shri Madhur Deo, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Ms H.S. Dhande, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent No.1/State, and Shri T.S. Mokadam and Shri G.S.
Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. We have also perused
the material on record with the able guidance of the Counsels.
20. The most crucial document which would have a bearing on
the outcome of the matter is a document of school leaving
certificate of the father of the petitioner, namely, Malayya Ramayya
Boduwar. Bare perusal of the said document shows that it bears
admission No. 345 and caste is shown as 'Kapewar'. According to
the petitioner, this was not before the Caste Scrutiny Committee
when the petitioner obtained validity. When this document was
confronted to the petitioner, the only reasoning or explanation is
found in his reply dated 15.11.2019. The said explanation states
that his brother-in-law, namely, Nagaiyya Jalakaiayya Gudettiwar,
who was the husband of his elder sister, was dealing with the
matter, and therefore, he is not aware about the said document.
Interestingly enough, the explanation is not tendered on affidavit,
nor there is any independent corroboration to the same. It is
therefore difficult to accept such an explanation.
21. Furthermore, what is glaring is the affidavit filed by the
petitioner himself that since there are no documents in support of
the caste claim of the father of the petitioner, he is not able to
submit the same. He, however, states in his affidavit that his caste,
as also of his father, is 'Beldar'. However, as stated supra, there is
no independent corroboration to these documents. Furthermore,
the Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order has in detail
analysed the said document and stated that as can be seen from the
document, it bears Sr. No. 345, but when this fact was verified from
the school record, it was found that there was no record in the
school from Sr. No. 1 to 533. The only record which is available
with the said school is from Sr. No. 534 onwards. The Committee
has further found that the date of birth of the student admitted at
Sr. No. 534 is 04.04.1920, and the year of admission is 1926-27. It
has therefore concluded that the date of birth of the father of the
petitioner, as mentioned in the document, i.e., 13.05.1945, and the
date of admission as 20.07.1951, is not possible, since Sr. No. 345
is much before the Sr.No. 534, and therefore the discrepancy being
huge is not probable. It has therefore reached to a conclusion that
the said document is forged and cannot be relied upon.
22. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner
strenuously argued that the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee is
perverse and he also submits that the caste 'Kapewar' is in 'Beldar'
only, we are hardly impressed by such argument. Firstly because
the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee is not perverse and is a
conclusion reached on the basis of documents on record.
23. Furthermore, as far as the contention of the petitioner is
concerned, that he was never appointed in the open category
cannot also be countenanced. Since, as can be seen from the
averments in the petition, that his caste claim was forwarded for
verification of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur, with his
signature/knowledge. In pursuance to the enquiry conducted by
the said Committee, a validity certificate was issued on 21.10.2011.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge this action of
the employer of sending proposal for verification to the Scrutiny
Committee. It is therefore too late in the day to say that the
petitioner being appointed in an open category, the employer, i.e.,
respondent No.2, could not have been forwarded his claim to the
Scrutiny Committee. Thus, having acquiesced in the fact of the
employer, i.e., the respondent No.2, of sending his claim for
verification as per the provisions of the Act of 2000, we are of the
considered opinion that now the petitioner cannot claim that he is
or was in fact appointed in the open category. It therefore follows
that he was appointed in a reserved category and only in pursuance
to which his caste claim was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee
for verification.
24. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Ramji Batanji Vs. Manohar Chintaman,
reported in AIR 1961 Bom 169, to submit that if an admission is
capable of two interpretations, an interpretation unfavourable to
the person making it should not be put on his admission. This
judgment, however, would not take the case of the petitioner any
further in view of the fact that there is no corroborative and
independent corroboration as discussed by us supra.
25. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s). No. 14510/2024, Alpeshkumar Ramsinh
Rathod Vs. Admission Committee for Professional Medical
Educational Courses & Ors., which states that since the petitioner
was meritorious, his candidature in the general category may be
taken into account. However, even this order cannot support the
petitioner since, as stated by us supra the act of acquiescence
would come in the way of the petitioner.
26. He has also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, which states the
methodology in case of persons belonging to the reserved category
appointed to non-reserved posts on their own merit. However, this
judgment also does not support the petitioner, since he has never
objected to the fact that his caste claim was sent to the validity
committee for verification.
27. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on
judgment of this Court reported in Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar Vs.
District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and
another, reported in 2021 (5) Mh.L.J. 345, who state that it was
not permissible for the Committee to re-examine the caste
certificate and the validity certificate on which it was so sought to
be done. However, the facts in the said matter are different, as
there is no corroborative evidence even otherwise.
28. He has also relied on the judgment of Union of India Vs. M/s
Chaturbhai M. Patel & Company, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 747 ,
states that fraud, like any other charge of a criminal offence, must
be established beyond reasonable doubt. There cannot be any
dispute about this proposition. However, in the present case, there
is a conclusive finding and that too a finding of fact by the Scrutiny
Committee regarding the fraud which cannot be dispelled by the
petitioner.
29. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition
and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
