906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2019

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9318 OF 2025

Avinash s/o.Bharat Ahire

Age – 29 years, Occ. Service,

R/o. Type-2, B-1158, a/P Ojhar Township,

Tq. Niphad, Dist. Nashik ...Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Maharashtra

Department of Tribal Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

Through its Secretary

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik

Through its Member Secretary.

3. The Special Sales Tax Commissioner,

Maharashtra State,

3

rd

Floor, H-Wing, Sales Tax Bhawan,

Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400010.

4. The Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner (Estt)-4

Maharashtra State,

3

rd

Floor, 323, H-Wing , Sales Tax Bhawan,

Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. ...Respondents

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2019

Tushar s/o.Bharat Ahire

Age – 36 years, Occ. Service,

R/o. Type-2, B-1158, a/P Ojhar Township,

Tq. Niphad, Dist. Nashik ...Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Maharashtra

Page 1 of 22

Mane

JYOTI

RAJESH

MANE

Digitally signed

by JYOTI RAJESH

MANE

Date: 2026.02.20

19:42:03 +0530

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

Department of Tribal Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

Through its Secretary

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik

Through its Member Secretary.

3. The Chief Manager (P & A)

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Aircraft Division, Nashik

Ojhar Township P.O.422207,

Tq.Niphad, Dist. Nashik ...Respondents

_______

Mr. Sahil Chaudhari i/b. MR. Sushant C. Yeramwar, for Petitioners in both WPs.

Mrs. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for Respondent -State.

_______

CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

RESERVED ON:03 FEBRUARY 2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 20 FEBRUARY 2026

Judgment (Per:- Aarti Sathe, J. )

1. These two Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

challenging the decision dated 4th May 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the

“impugned order”) of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, rendered in respect of the

Petitioner and his brother, Tushar Bharat Ahire. Since both Petitions arise out of

the common impugned order and involve identical issues, they are being disposed

of by this common judgment.

2. By the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the Tribe claims

of the Petitioners as belonging to “Thakur – Scheduled Tribe” have been

invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This is stated to be affecting the

Page 2 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

appointment of Petitioner Avinash Bharat Ahire as Sales Tax Inspector which was

taken on a reserved post on the basis of the said Tribe claim. The prayers made in

both the Petitions are also common. For convenience, the reliefs as prayed for in

the first Writ Petition No. 6498 of 2019, (Avinash S/o. Bharat Ahire Vs. The State

of Maharashtra & Ors.) are reproduced hereinbelow:

(A) To grant rule and allow this petition;

(B) To quash and set aside the impugned decision and order of the

Committee dated 4.5.2019 (Exhibit-S) invalidating Tribe Claim of the

Petitioner and declare that Petitioner belongs to Thakur - Scheduled Tribe'

by issuing appropriate writ, orders, or directions as the case may be;

(C) To direct the Respondents No. 3 & 4 not to take any coercive action

against the Petitioner on the basis of impugned decision of the Committee

dated 4.5.2019 invalidating his Tribe Claim (Exhibit-S) and allow him to

work on the post of Sales Tax Inspector pending final adjudication of the

present Writ Petition; by issuing appropriate writ, orders, or directions as

the case may be;

(D) To grant stay to the impugned decision and order of the Committee

dated 4.5.2019 invalidating Tribe Claim of the Petitioner (Exhibit-S) and

direct the Respondents No. 3 & 4 not to take any coercive action against

the Petitioner on the basis of impugned decision of the Committee

invalidating his Tribe Claim and allow the Petitioner to work as Sales Tax

Inspector pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition;

(E) To grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause;

(F) To grant any other relief to which the Petitioner is entitled for;

3.

Briefly, the facts are as follows:

i) The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Malegaon, issued a Caste Certificate in

favour of the Petitioner on the basis of documentary evidence submitted by him,

certifying that he belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe (ST).

ii) On 10th November 2005, the Petitioner submitted his Tribe Claim for

verification before Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik,

Page 3 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

through the college authorities. In support of his Tribe Claim, the Petitioner

produced the following documents:

a) School record of the Petitioner’s grandfather, Supdu Vitthal Ahire, dated 1st

August 1917, wherein his caste is recorded as “Thakur”. Copies of the school

admission extract and the school leaving certificate of the Petitioner’s grandfather

were submitted.

b) School leaving certificate of the Petitioner, wherein his caste is recorded as

“Thakur” since his admission in primary school.

c) School record of the Petitioner’s real brother, Tushar Bharat Ahire, wherein his

caste is recorded as “Thakur”.

d) Caste Validity Certificate dated 27th June 2005 issued in favour of

Dnyaneshwar Bharat Ahire, the real brother of the Petitioner.

e) School record of the Petitioner’s father, Bharat Supdu Ahire, certifying his caste

as “Thakur” from the time of his admission in the first standard on 26th June 1963.

f) Caste Validity Certificate dated 3rd September 1999 issued by the Nashik

Scrutiny Committee in favour of the Petitioner’s cousin brother, Rajendra Nanaji

Ahire, along with his affidavit disclosing genealogy (family tree) to establish his

relationship with the Petitioner.

g) Affidavit of the Petitioner disclosing his genealogy (family tree).

4. On 23rd April 2010, the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik conducted a

Vigilance Inquiry, pursuant to which the Vigilance Officer submitted his report of

even date to the Committee. The Vigilance Officer visited the Petitioner’s school

Page 4 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

and personally verified the school records of the Petitioner, his real brothers, his

father, his paternal cousin uncle, and his real grandfather. Upon verification, it was

observed that the caste of all the aforesaid relatives of the Petitioner was recorded as

“Thakur”.

5. The Vigilance Officer also recorded the statement of the Petitioner’s father

with regard to the traits and characteristics of the “Thakur” ST community. Further,

the Vigilance Officer noted that the Petitioner’s real brother, Dnyaneshwar Bharat

Ahire, and cousin brother, Rajendra Nanaji Ahire, had been issued Caste Validity

Certificates by the competent Scrutiny Committees, and that their relationship

with the Petitioner was duly established by affidavits disclosing their genealogy.

Despite such material on record, the Research Officer, without considering the

documentary evidence, the information furnished by the Petitioner’s father

regarding the traits and characteristics of the Thakur community, and without

taking into account the Caste Validity Certificates issued in favour of the

Petitioner’s real brother and cousin brother, recorded remarks to the effect that the

Petitioner was not a resident of an area specified for tribals prior to the year 1976.

6. It is the Petitioner’s case that further, the Scrutiny Committee, i.e.,

Respondent No. 2, without considering the documentary evidence available on

record dating back to the year 1917 and the Caste Validity Certificates issued in

favour of the Petitioner’s real brother and cousin brother, invalidated the Tribe

Claim of the Petitioner by an order dated 29th January 2011 on the grounds of

Affinity Test and area restriction.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Scrutiny Committee

Page 5 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

dated 29th January 2011, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 3987 of 2011

before this Court.

8. This Court, by its order dated 28th February 2014 passed in Avinash Bharat

Ahire vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. Writ Petition No. 3987 of 2011, quashed

and set aside the impugned decision of the Committee dated 29th January 2011

considering the decision of this Court in

Madhuri Nitin Jadhav vs. State of

Maharashtra & Others,

Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013, against which the

Supreme Court in

State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Madhuri Nitin Jadhav, Special

Leave Petition (C) No. 25000 of 2014, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. This

Court had directed the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, to

decide the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner afresh. The operative part of the said order

reads as under:

ORDER

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 29 January 2011 is

quashed and set aside.

b) The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for

reconsideration.

c) The Scrutiny Committee to re-consider every aspect, by giving an

opportunity to all the parties.

d) Liberty is granted to the Petitioner/parties to apply before the

Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral as well as,

documentary material.

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny

Committee, on 18 March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the

date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour to

dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within four

months from the date of receipt of Judgment/Order.

f) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the

Petitioner/Claimant, the same should not be given effect to and/or

acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of

communication of the order.

g) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

h) All the parties to cooperate.

Page 6 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

i)There shall be no order as to costs.

j)The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court in Writ

Petition/Civil Application to continue until the decision and four

weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

k) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this

Judgment/order.

9. Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, on 14th August 2015, the Petitioner

was appointed as a Sales Tax Inspector against a post reserved for the Scheduled

Tribe category by an order issued by Respondent No. 3, subject to the condition

that the Petitioner would submit his Caste Validity Certificate within a period of six

months from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, on 20th August 2015, the

Petitioner submitted an undertaking to Respondent No. 3 stating that in the event

his certificate was found to be false, his appointment as Sales Tax Inspector may be

cancelled.

10. Between September 2016 and April 2018, letters dated 27th September

2016 and 3rd April 2018 were issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit

his Caste Validity Certificate within six months from the date of his appointment

order.

11. As the Petitioner failed to submit his Caste Validity Certificate within the

prescribed time, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him directing him to submit

the said Certificate within fifteen days from the date of the Show Cause Notice.

12. In the aforesaid circumstances in the year 2018, the Petitioner filed Writ

Petition (St.) No. 28264 of 2018 before this Court seeking a direction to the

Scrutiny Committee to expeditiously decide the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner. By

an order dated 9th October 2018, this Court allowed Writ Petition (St.) No. 28264

Page 7 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

of 2018 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the Tribe Claim of the

Petitioner on or before 28th February 2019. By the said order, this Court further

directed that no coercive steps be taken by the employer against the Petitioner until

the decision on his Tribe Claim.

13. Pursuant thereto, on 23rd October 2018, the Petitioner appeared before

the Scrutiny Committee and submitted a detailed representation in support of his

Tribe Claim. During the period between 2018 and 2019, the Petitioner made

several representations to the Scrutiny Committee as the Committee was not taking

an expeditious decision on his Tribe Claim.

14. On 25th February 2019, the Petitioner submitted a further representation

along with additional documentary evidence, which included a Caste Validity

Certificate issued in favour of his cousin brother, Jitendra Nanaji Ahire, an affidavit

disclosing genealogy to establish his relationship with the Petitioner; and a 7/12

extract pertaining to tribal land belonging to the Petitioner’s father, indicating

restrictions on transfer in accordance with Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966.

15. On 27th March 2019, in pursuance of the Vigilance Inquiry conducted in

the year 2014, on which the Research Officer had recorded his remarks dated 4th

August 2015, the Vigilance Report of the year 2014 was served upon the Petitioner.

The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said Vigilance Report on 1st April 2019.

16. In the year 2019, as the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner was still not decided

by the Scrutiny Committee despite the earlier directions of this Court, the

Page 8 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

Petitioner filed Contempt Petition (St.) No. 7690 of 2019 in Writ Petition (St.)

No. 28264 of 2018.

17. By an order dated 25th April 2019, this Court disposed of Contempt

Petition (St.) No. 7690 of 2019 on the basis of the statement made by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee to the effect

that the Scrutiny Committee would decide the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner within

a period of ten days.

18. By the impugned order dated 4th May 2019, Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner on the grounds of failure

of the Affinity Test and area restriction, as held in the said impugned order.

19. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4th May 2019, the Petitioner

has preferred the present Writ Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of the

said order. By an order dated 24th May 2019, this Court granted ad-interim relief

in terms of prayer clause (d) of the Petition which reads thus:-

(d) To grant stay to the impugned decision and order of the Committee

dated 4.5.2019 invalidationg Tribe Claim of the Petitioner (Exhibit-S)

and direct the Respondents No. 3 & 4 not to take any coercive action

against the Petitioner on the basis of impugned decision of the Committee

invalidating his Tribe Claim and allow the Petitioner to work as Sales Tax

Inspector pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition;

Thereafter, by an order dated 4th February 2020, this Court admitted the present

Petition.

20. Subsequent to the filing of the present Petition, the Petitioner’s cousin,

namely Alishan Shivaji Ahire, also filed Writ Petition No. 870 of 2021 before this

Page 9 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

Court challenging the order invalidating her Tribe Claim. This Court by its order

dated 24

th

January 2024, passed on the said Writ Petiton set aside the order of

invalidation in the case of Alishan Shivaji Ahire, and remanded the matter back to

the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. On 15th July 2024, in remand

proceedings, the Scrutiny Committee issued a Caste Validity Certificate in favour

of the Petitioner’s cousin, Alishan Shivaji Ahire. Thereafter, on 30th August 2024,

the Scrutiny Committee also issued a Caste Validity Certificate in favour of Vidya

Nanaji Ahire.

21. On 2nd May 2025, the Petitioner submitted an application to his employer

seeking the benefit of permanency and inclusion of his name in the seniority list

for promotion upon completion of ten years of service. In response to the said

application, by a communication dated 8th May 2025, the employer directed the

Petitioner to submit his Caste Validity Certificate in order to avail of the aforesaid

benefits.

22. Aggrieved by the communication dated 8th May 2025, the Petitioner

filed Interim Application No. 9318 of 2025 on 16th June 2025, inter alia, seeking

quashing of the letter dated 8th May 2025 and a direction to the Petitioner’s

employer to grant the aforesaid benefits. The said Interim Application is pending

adjudication and is listed alongwith this Petition.

23. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the issue which falls for

consideration before this Court is whether the Scrutiny Committee, by the

impugned order dated 4th May 2019, erred in invalidating the Tribe Claim of the

Petitioner as belonging to the “Thakur” ST community.

Page 10 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

24. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Sahil Chaudhari, on behalf of the

Petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Prabhune, on behalf of

the Respondent-State. With their assistance, we have also perused the record and

the impugned order in question.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

25. At the outset, we may observe that the Petitioner, in order to

substantiate his caste validity claim had submitted the following documents which

established that the Petitioner belong to the Thakur (ST) Community:-

i) School leaving certificate of the Petitioner,

ii) School leaving certificate of Petitioner’s grandfather Supdu Vitthal Ahire,

iii) School record of the Petitioner’s real brother, Tushar Bharat Ahire, showing

that he belongs to the Thakur Community.

iv) Caste Validity Certificate dated 27th June 2005 issued in favour of

Dnyaneshwar Bharat Ahire, the real brother of the Petitioner certifying that he

belongs to the Thakur (ST) Community.

v) School record of the Petitioner’s father, Bharat Supdu Ahire showing that he

belongs to the Thakur Community.

vi) Caste Validity Certificate dated 3rd September 1999 issued by the Nashik

Scrutiny Committee in favour of the Petitioner’s cousin brother, Rajendra

Nanaji Ahire, certifying that he belongs to the Thakur (ST) Community, along

with his affidavit disclosing genealogy (family tree) to establish his relationship

with the Petitioner.

Page 11 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

vii) Certificate of validity dated 15

th

May 2000 of Jitendra Nanaji Ahire,

cousin brother of the Petitioner certifying that he belongs to the Thakur (ST)

Community.

viii) School records of Dadaji Supdu Ahire, paternal uncle of the Petitioner

showing that he belongs to the Thakur Community showing that he belongs to

the Thakur Community.

ix) School records of Nanaji Supdu Ahire, paternal uncle of the Petitioner

showing that he belongs to the Thakur Community.

x) School records of Shivaji Supdu Ahire, paternal uncle of the Petitioner

showing that he belongs to the Thakur Community.

xi) School records of Ramesh Supdu Ahire, paternal uncle of the Petitioner

showing that he belongs to the Thakur Community.

xii) 7/12 extract of the tribal land belonging to Bharat Supdu Ahire, the father

of the Petitioner.

xiii) Affidavit of the Petitioner disclosing his genealogy (family tree).

However, the impugned order without considering the aforesaid

documents , only on the basis of certain rituals and traditions followed by the

Thakur Community invalidated the Petitioner's tribe claim, thereby bypassing the

established principles of law while deciding caste claims.

26. The impugned order has also wrongly held that, because instances

exist where the surname “Thakur” is associated with higher castes, the Petitioner

has not conclusively established that he belongs to the ST community. In doing so,

Page 12 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

the Committee has completely overlooked the documents supporting the

Petitioner’s claim.

27. Further, the impugned order has erronouesly concluded that the

Petitioner has not been able to establish cultural authenticity in respect of his claim

of belonging to the Thakur ST community. In our opinion, such a conclusion

could not reasonably have been reached by the Scrutiny Committee, particularly in

light of the documentary evidence referred to in paragraphs 3 and 25 of this order,

which clearly establishes that the Petitioner belongs to the Thakur ST community.

28. As fairly not disputed (as it could not be) by the learned AGP Ms.

Savita Prabhune, the impugned order also failed to take into consideration a crucial

piece of evidence i.e. the school record of the Petitioner’s grandfather, dating back

to 1917. This pre-independence record establishes that the Petitioner’s grandfather

belonged to the Thakur ST community. By ignoring this documentary evidence,

the impugned order is vitiated by non-appreciation of facts and law. It is a settled

principle of law in

Madhuri Patil V.s. Commissioner, Tribal Development

1

that

documents of the pre-constitutional period showing the caste of the applicant and

their ancestors have significant probative value.

The impugned order further does

not record any finding of fraud or misrepresentation in respect of the validity

certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner’s cousins and real brother. The

impugned order by simply ignoring the validity of the documents and merely by

relying on the affinity test has erred in invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner.

29. In this view of the matter and on perusal of the impugned order, we

1 (1994) 6 SCC 241

Page 13 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

are of the opinion that the Scrutiny Committee was not correct and lawful in

invalidating the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner and has failed to appreciate the

substantial documentary evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner’s claim.

We are further of the view that the impugned order has erroneously concluded that

the Petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to the Thakur ST community.

The Committee misdirected itself in holding that the mere submission of

documents in support of the claim cannot justify the Petitioner's entitlement.

30 Our aforesaid observations are also supported by the decision of the

Supreme Court in

Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State

of Maharashtra and Others

2

, wherein it has been held that the affinity test is not

conclusive either way and does not constitute a litmus test for deciding a caste or

tribe claim. The Supreme Court has further held that the affinity test is not an

essential component in the process of determining the correctness of a caste or tribe

claim in every case. The Supreme Court has also categorically held that the caste

scrutiny committee should not, in every case, mechanically refer the matter to the

Vigilance Cell for continuation of the inquiry, including the affinity test. Such

reference ought to be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the

documentary evidence produced by the applicant. The relevant paragraphs of the

Supreme Court judgment are reproduced below:

22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in many cases.

These are the cases where the applicant relies upon caste validity certificates

issued to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be

issued either by the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directions

issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case or constituted under the Rules framed

under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must

2 (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415

Page 14 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee

will have to decide whether the applicant has established that the person to

whom the validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood

relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and exact

relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has been granted.

Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee

whether the validity certificate has been granted to the blood relative of the

applicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee after holding due enquiry

and following due procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee has issued

a validity certificate contemplated in terms of the decision in the case of

Kumari Madhuri Patil, the examination will be whether the enquiry

contemplated by the said decision has been held. If the certificate relied upon

is issued after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will

have to ascertain whether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed

the procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SC Rules, as

the case may be. For this verification, the Scrutiny Committee can exercise

powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) by requisitioning the record of the

concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has issued the validity certificate

to the blood relative of the applicant. If the record has been destroyed, the

Scrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has been held on the

basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by which caste validity

has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant. If it is established that

the validity certificate has been granted without holding a proper inquiry or

without recording reasons, obviously, the caste scrutiny committee cannot

validate the caste certificate only on the basis of such validity certificate of the

blood relative.

23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may be satisfied that the caste

validity certificate relied upon by the applicant has been issued after making a

lawful enquiry. But if the Scrutiny Committee is of the view that the applicant

has not clearly established that the person to whom caste validity certificate

produced on record has been granted is his blood relative, in terms of subrule

(2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to

refer the case for conducting an enquiry through Vigilance Cell. In such a

case, the Vigilance Cell can be directed by the Scrutiny Committee to conduct

an enquiry limited to the relationship claimed by the applicant with the

person in whose favour the caste validity certificate has been issued. If, on the

basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied

that the person in whose favour caste validity certificate has been issued is a

blood relative of the applicant and lawful enquiry has been conducted before

issuing the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue

validity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy the affinity test. For

example, if it is established that the father or grandfather of the applicant has

been given a caste validity certificate after holding a lawful enquiry in

accordance with law, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that the

grandfather or father of the applicant, as the case may be, belongs to

Scheduled Tribe but the applicant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only

if the relationship as pleaded by the applicant is not established, the other

evidence produced by the applicant and the result of the affinity test can be

taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.

Page 15 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

24. As provided in subrule (7) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the Vigilance Cell’s

report is not conclusive. If on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell and

other evidence on record, the Scrutiny Committee comes to a conclusion that

the caste claim is genuine, a caste validity certificate can be issued. Only on

the ground that the report of vigilance cell is in favour of the applicant,

validity certificate cannot be mechanically granted without application of

mind. If the report of the Vigilance Cell is against the applicant, his caste

claim cannot be rejected only on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell

without providing a copy of the report to the applicant and without giving

him an opportunity of being heard on the report. After giving an opportunity

to the applicant to make submissions on the report, the Scrutiny Committee

may reject the caste claim. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee can also

record a finding that the caste claim is genuine. It all depends on the facts of

each case. AFFINITY TEST

25. Now, we come to the controversy regarding the affinity test. In clause (5)

of Paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1 it is held

that in the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Vigilance Cell will submit a report as

regards peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals,

customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead

bodies etc. in respect of the particular caste or tribe. Such particulars

ascertained by the Vigilance Cell in respect of a particular Scheduled Tribe are

very relevant for the conduct of the affinity test. The Vigilance Cell, while

conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge of the applicant about

deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death

ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe. By its very

nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive. If the applicant has stayed

in bigger urban areas along with his family for decades or if his family has

stayed in such urban areas for decades, the applicant may not have knowledge

of the aforesaid facts. It is true that the Vigilance Cell can also question the

parents of the applicant. But in a given case, even the parents may be unaware

for the reason that for several years they have been staying in bigger urban

areas. On the other hand, a person may not belong to the particular tribe, but

he may have a good knowledge about the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, Shri

Shekhar Naphade, the learned senior counsel, is right when he submitted that

the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test. We may again note here that

question of conduct of the affinity test arises only in those cases where the

Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the

applicant.

…………….

27. Before we go into the decisions in the cases of Vijakumar3 and Anand4,

we need to deal with an argument made by one of the interveners that the

Scrutiny Committee is not a quasijudicial authority. The said submission is

based on a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dayaram.

In paragraph 35, the decision in the case of Dayaram holds thus:

“35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or

tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into

a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status

claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative

Page 16 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

authorities, the orders of the Scrutiny Committee are also open to challenge in

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with

provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and

will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. As this

Court found that a large number of seats or posts reserved for the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates

claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court

directed the constitution of such Scrutiny Committees, to provide an

expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a

legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs

status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC

(L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] will only continue till the legislature

concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims

for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to

verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the

benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates.”

(emphasis added)

31. Further, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (G.S.

Kulkarni, J.) was a member in the case of Krishna Balaji Kolewad v. State of

Maharashtra and Others

3

and referring to the decision of this Court in Apoorva

Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and Others

4

, set aside

the order of the Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste certificate of the Petitioner

therein was invalidated on specious grounds. This Court, in the said decision, held

that where validity certificates had been issued in favour of the relatives of the

Petitioner and the same were not shown to have been obtained by fraud, the

Petitioner’s claim could not be invalidated. The relevant paragraphs of the decision

in

Krishna Balaji Kolewad v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) are

reproduced below:

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the impugned order, we are of the opinion that Scrutiny

Committee has misdirected itself while passing the impugned order.

3(WP No.10303/2017)

4 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401

Page 17 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

There was no material on record to discard the entire material as

placed on record by the petitioner including the material on the basis

of which two validity certificates were granted to the said to relatives.

The documents in that regard have remained undisputed. Further the

fact that the Petitioner's cousin cousin uncle as also the Petitioner's

real sister has been granted caste validity certificate was material and

could not have also been overlooked when there was no finding of

any fraud, misrepresentation in issuing the said validity certificate. It

is also not the case that these validity certificates were issued by the

Committee having no jurisdiction. Thus, only on a stray ground that

the original school register had become old in respect of one

document pertaining to the Petitioner's father as noted above, the

Scrutiny Committee could not have discarded the other undisputed

material which was placed on record.

6. In these facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the present case is

clearly covered by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6)

Mh.L.J. 401 wherein the Division Bench has in

paragraphs 7 and 9 observed thus :

“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

Page 18 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

change of caste has been one 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 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 cast

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.”

7. Thus in our considered view, the reason assigned by the Scrutiny

Committee for rejection of the Petitioner's claim for validation of his

caste certificate belonging to “Mannervarlu (S.T.)” cannot be sustained

as it runs contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra).

32. Further this Court in another decision of

Sneha Digambar

Mochewad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

5

held as follows:-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee has

5(WP NO. 10349/2017)

Page 19 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

committed error in discarding the vital documents i.e. four validity

certificates issued in respect to the petitioner's father, three uncles as

also committed error in ignoring the pre- constitution documents in

respect of her grandfather. In support of his contention, the

petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in the case of

Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee No.1 and Others 2010 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal, 401,

as also in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raju

R. Vasave vs. M.D. Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC, 54.

6. From the aforesaid judgments, is is clear that in the absence of

any fraud, misrepresentation, order being without jurisdiction or

there is ignorance of any vital documents while granting previous

validity certificate, the validity certificate of near relatives of the

claimant cannot be discarded.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the reliance

of the Committee on the two documents about the petitioner's third

cousin namely Laxman Vitthal Koli is of no consequence as though

his name is shown in genealogy, but he belongs to a different branch

of the family and in respect of the petitioner had not submitted any

vigilance certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on Form “F” read with Rule 11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of),

Certificate Rules, 2003 to contend that the genealogical tree is to be

submitted for showing the relations with the relatives, whose validity

certificates are enclosed to the application and mentioned therein.

8. On the other hand, learned AGP has supported the impugned

order passed by the Committee.

9. We have perused the Vigilance Report dated 26 August 2017

produced before us by the learned AGP.. On a close scrutiny of the

same, it is clear that the only two documents have been referred by

the Vigilance Cell, which are relating to third cousin of the petitioner,

namely Laxman Vitthal Koli and Vyankat Vitthalvao Koli. These

documents are of the year 1977 and 1966 of Zilla Parishad Schoo,

Talegaon. These documents are not pre- constitution documents,

whereas the petitioner, in support of her claim had submitted not

only three pre-constitution documents but also four validity

certificates in respect of her close relatives including father. It is also

clear from the report of the Vigilance Cell that Vigilance Cell has not

disputed the documents produced by the petitioner but has referred

in respect of two documents in which the entry of 'Koli' is recorded.

In the circumstances, in our view on the basis of some stray entries in

respect to the distant branch of the petitioner, the vital documents,

Page 20 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

which the petitioner had produced for validation of her claim cannot

be brushed aside and overlooked.

10. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the findings

recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the law laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court as also Supreme Court in

the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale and Raju R.Vasave vs. M.D.

Bhivapurkar (supra).

33.

Thus, in our considered view, the reasons assigned by the Scrutiny

Committee in the impugned order for invalidating the Petitioner’s tribe claim—

namely, that the Petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur’ ST community cannot be sustained,

as it runs contrary to the consistent view taken by the Division Bench of this Court

in

Apoorva Nichale (supra), Krishna Balaji Kolewad (supra), and Sneha d/o

Digambar Machewad

(supra). In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to

pass the following order, which will meet the ends of justice.

34. It is agreed between the parties that the second Writ Petition also can

be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and the orders:

ORDER

a) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed by the impugned order(s)

being set aside.

b) Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a

Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner(s) forthwith upon receipt

of an authenticated copy of this order.

c) As a consequence to the aforesaid relief, Petitioner Shri

Avinash Bharat Ahire is entitled to continue as a Sales Tax Inspector

in the employment as a candidate appointed on the reserved post

belonging to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe upon submission of the

Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee.

Page 21 of 22

Mane

906-WP6498-19 AW. IA AND ANR.DOC

d) Both the Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order

as to costs.

e) The Interim Application also stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

Rule made absolute in both the Petitions in terms of the above.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 22 of 22

Mane