[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ku. Payal Mahendra Gajbe vs The S.T. Certificate Scrutiny ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:77-DB
wp 5388-2024.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5388 OF 2024
Ku. Payal Mahendra Gajbe age about 18
Occupation: Student
Admitted to B.E in Computer Engineering
Plot No.17, Utkarsh Nagar, Behind Chintamani
Nagar 1, Besa Road, Nagpur 440027
M.9960567318,
Email, [email protected]
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur, Through its Member
Secretary, Giripeth, Nagpur-440 010.
email: [email protected]
2. Cummins College of Engineering for Women
Sukhali (Gupchup) Through its Principal
AT, PO, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur-441110
[email protected]
3. State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra
State, Through its Commissioner,
8th floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001.
(e-Mail [email protected])
4. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Through its Registrar, Nagpur- 440033
[email protected]
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.D. Jambhule, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1/State
Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 5388-2024.odt 2/12
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.03.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner, Ku. Payal Mahendra Gajbe, has filed the
present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated
26.08.2024, bearing No. क्र.सआ/अजप्रतस/नाग/I/४५४/३१/२०२३,
passed by Respondent No. 1, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Scrutiny
Committee'), whereby the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the
petitioner's claim to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, enumerated at Sr.
No. 18 of the Scheduled Tribes List for the State of Maharashtra.
3. The petitioner holds a "Mana" Scheduled Tribe caste
certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner, dated
15.11.2016. Her father Mahendra and cousin uncle Sunil were
granted validity certificates for "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by the very
same Scrutiny Committee on 01.04.2006 and 20.10.2007
respectively. The petitioner's application was decided pursuant to
directions in W.P. No. 3176/2024, whereby this Court directed the
Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim within 8 weeks from
01.07.2024. Despite attending the hearing on 24.07.2024 and
submitting her reply, the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned
order dated 26.08.2024 invalidating the caste claim thereby gravely
jeopardizing her admission to First Year B.E. (Computer
Engineering) under the Scheduled Tribe (Women) quota, which
stands liable to automatic cancellation in the absence of a valid
validity certificate on or before 09.09.2024. This order of
invalidation passed by the respondent no.1 on 26.08.2024 is
assailed in the present petition.
4. We have heard Shri N.D. Jambhule, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for Respondent/State, and Shri N.A. Gaikwad, learned
Counsel for Respondent No. 3.
5. The petitioner has placed on record the following documents
in support of her claim:
Sr. No. Document Person Relation Caste Year
1. Service Suratram Great- Mana 13.10.1929
Book Raghobaji grandfather
Gajbe
2. Service Godavari w/ Grandfa- Mana 26.09.1943
Book o. Raghobaji ther's Sister
Gajbe
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Scrutiny
Committee granted validity certificates to the petitioner's father
Mahendra on 01.04.2006 and cousin uncle Sunil on 20.10.2007 on
the basis of the same set of documents. The petitioner, by her letter
dated 21.05.2024, brought the said validity certificates to the
notice of the Committee and demanded that the same ratio be
applied while deciding her claim.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v.
State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 326]; Priya w/o.
Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 909];
Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims
[(2012) 1 SCC 113]; Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of
Maharashtra [(2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 513]; Shubham's case [(2019) 1
Mh.L.J. 757]; Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and Others [W.P. No. 1504 of
2010]; and W.P. No. 8392/2022 (Sakshi Katkar), order dated
30.08.2024.
8. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitting that during the Police Vigilance enquiry, the following
adverse entries were found in the revenue and school records of the
petitioner's blood relatives from Mauja Ganeshpur Jamtha,
Amravati:
Sr. Document Name Relation Caste Year Remarks
No.
1. DOB Copy, Ragho Great-great- Mani 01.11.1926 Concealed
Village Jamathi, Sakharam grandfather by
Ganeshpur Gajbe petitioner
2. DOB Copy, Son of Great-great- Mani 06.11.1927 Concealed
Village Jamathi, Ragho grandfather by
Ganeshpur Sakharam petitioner
Gajbe
3. DOB Copy, Daughter Great-great- Mani 16.01.1938 Concealed
Village Jamathi, of Ragho grandfather by
Ganeshpur Sakharam petitioner
Gajbe
4. DOB Copy, Chidhi d/o Great-great- Mani 07.08.1940 Concealed
Village Jamathi, Ragho grandfather by
Ganeshpur Sakharam petitioner
5. DOB Copy, Godhi d/o Great-great- Mani 26.09.1943 Concealed
Village Jamathi, Ragho grandfather by
Ganeshpur Sakharam petitioner
6. Dakhil Kharij Godavari Great Mani DOB : Concealed
Reg.No. 106, Raghoba grandfather's 26.09.1943 by
Z.P. School Sakharam sister petitioner
Ganeshpur Gajbe
7. Dakhil Kharij Madhu Great- Mani DOB: Concealed
Reg. No. 161, Raghoba grandfather's 18.12.1948 by
Z.P. School Sakharam sister petitioner
Ganeshpur Gajbe
8. Perepatrak, Sukdeo Great-great- Mani 1975-76 Concealed
Mouja Suratram grandfather by
Bhalapur, Tah. Ragho petitioner
Morshi Gajbe
9. Dakhil Kharij Ganesh Not in Mane DOB : Not
Reg.No. 530, Suratram genealogy 01.05.1958 disclosed
Z.P. School Raghobaji in
Ganeshpur Gajbe genealogy
10. Hakka Nondani Ragho Great-great- Mana - Received
Patrak, Sakharam grandfather during
Ganeshpur Gajbe Vigilance
11. Dakhil Kharij Ramesh Grandfather Mana DOB : Received
Reg. No. 499, Suratram 11.07.1966 during
Z.P. School Raghoba Vigilance
Ganeshpur Gajbe
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner suppressed her
ancestral residence at Mauja Ganeshpur Jamtha, Taluka Warud,
District Amravati and incorrectly mentioned Mauja Mowad, Taluka
Narkhed, District Nagpur in her genealogy. The service books
submitted by the petitioner carry no evidentiary value as caste
entries therein are made on the basis of caste certificates which are
subject to verification, and no educational documents were
produced in support.
10. As regards the validity certificates of father Mahendra and
uncle Sunil, the same were issued without following mandatory
procedure and without Police Vigilance enquiry, and the anti-claim
records before the present Scrutiny Committee were not before the
earlier Scrutiny Committee. Reliance is placed upon W.P. No.
5559/2019 (Mayuri Balwant Dadmal), order dated 03.04.2024,
wherein this Court upheld the invalidation order in the absence of
pre-independence documents showing forefathers belonging to
"Mana".
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel
for the respective parties and perused the record of the matter. The
Scrutiny Committee rejected the petitioner's claim on the following
grounds: (a) documentary evidence insufficient; (b) "Mani" entries
treated as contra-evidence; (c) Affinity Test unsatisfactory; and (d)
service books carrying no evidentiary value.
12. As regards point (a) is concerned: The finding of the Scrutiny
Committee that the documentary evidence is insufficient is wholly
perverse and contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The petitioner's father and cousin uncle were
granted validity certificates for "Mana" Scheduled Tribe by the very
same Scrutiny Committee in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC
326], has categorically held that once pre-constitutional documents
establish the tribe claim of blood relatives, the same ought to be
accepted as clinching evidence, and the Committee is bound to
follow such binding ratio. The petitioner's genealogy, prepared on
24.08.2023, and the pre-constitutional documents placed on
record, along with the admitted validity certificates of her father
and cousin uncle, constitute cogent evidence that was arbitrarily
ignored by the Scrutiny Committee. Further, this Court in Apoorva
d/o. Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No. 1 and Others [W.P. No. 1504 of 2010, has held that
when blood relatives of the petitioner hold valid certificates
granted by the very same Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner is
entitled to the grant of a validity certificate on the same ratio, and
the Scrutiny Committee is not justified in taking a contrary view in
the absence of any fresh material warranting a departure from the
earlier finding.
13. As regards point (b) is concerned, the finding that "Mani"
entries in documents constitute contra-evidence against the
petitioner's claim is directly contrary to the binding declaration of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya w/o. Pramod Gajbe v. State of
Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 909], wherein the Court has
unequivocally held in Para 10 that "entry 'Mani' has to be read as
'Mana' Scheduled Tribe". The Scrutiny Committee treating "Mani"
entries as adverse to the petitioner thus has no legal basis
whatsoever and renders the impugned order perverse on its face.
14. As regards point (c) is concerned, the adverse finding on the
Affinity Test is equally unsustainable. This Court, in Mana Adim
Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra (MAJM case) reported at
(2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 513, has laid down detailed guidelines for the
evaluation of affinity of members of the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
The impugned order reflects gross disrespect towards the findings
of this Court in the aforesaid decisions, inasmuch as the Scrutiny
Committee has failed to evaluate the Affinity Test in the light of
those binding guidelines.
15. As regards point (d) is concerned, the rejection of the Service
Books of Suratram Raghobaji Gajbe and Godavari Raghobaji Gajbe
on the ground that the basis of the caste entry is not clear is equally
unsustainable. It is well settled that a service book is an official
document maintained by a government authority and carries a
presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, inasmuch as entries made therein by a public servant in
the discharge of his official duty are presumed to be correct. The
petitioner submitted the first page of the service book of Suratram
Raghobaji Gajbe, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mana" with date
of birth 13.10.1929, and the first page of the service book of
Godavari Raghobaji Gajbe, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mana"
with date of birth 26.09.1943. The Scrutiny Committee's finding
that such entries carry no evidentiary value merely on the ground
that the basis of the caste entry is not forthcoming amounts to a
perverse appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as it was the duty of
the Scrutiny Committee to call for clarification from the concerned
department if it harboured any doubt as to the basis of the entry,
rather than summarily rejecting the said documents.
16. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that the said
service books cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of caste
which is denied, it is a matter of record that the very same Scrutiny
Committee had granted a validity certificate to the petitioner's
father Mahendra on 01.04.2006 and to her cousin uncle Sunil on
20.10.2007, and the said validity certificates were granted on the
basis of the same set of documents, including the aforesaid service
books. It is therefore wholly inconsistent and arbitrary on the part
of the Scrutiny Committee to take the position that the very same
documents, which were found sufficient to grant validity
certificates to the petitioner's father and cousin uncle, are now
being held to be of no evidentiary value in the case of the
petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee cannot blow hot and cold in the
same breath, and such contradictory and inconsistent conduct
renders the impugned order liable to be quashed and set aside on
this ground alone.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
26.08.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny
Committee has acted in a perverse, arbitrary, and illegal manner in
complete disregard of binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in Case
No. क्र.सआ/अजप्रतस/नाग/I/४५४/३१/२०२३, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) The respondent No.1, Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue
a caste validity certificate to Petitioner certifying her as belonging
to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
