Darshan S/O Anant Wankhede Vs S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Dy. Director/Member Secy., Yavatmal

Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, Sai Uttam Villa, House No.3, Near Rangoli Ground, Yavatmal, Through its Deputy Director/ Member Secretary. …. RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr. A. P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

¶13

DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 29.09.2025 DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 03.11.2025

¶14

JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶15

Heard. Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

¶17

2 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶18

Judgment

¶19

The Petitioner by this petition is challenging the order dated 21/03/2025, passed by the Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner as “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional (S.T.) Order 1950.

¶20

The contention of the Petitioner is that he is belonging to “Thakur” Schedule Tribe. The Sub divisional Officer, Washim has issued a Caste Certificate of ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe in favour of the Petitioner on 26/03/2023. The Petitioner is a student therefore to avail the benefits prescribed for scheduled tribe category candidate, he has submitted a proposal along with necessary documents for verification to the Respondent Scrutiny Committee through College. It is further contended that the Petitioner along with the proposal submitted documents related to his father and grandfather, which includes documents of prior to 1950, wherein entry in regard to Caste ‘Thakur’ is clearly mentioned. The Petitioner has submitted following documents prior to 1950 in support of his Tribe Claim:

¶21

3

¶22

Judgment

¶23

J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶24

v- dz-	nLr,sotkps Lo:i	nLr,sotkojhy O;Drhps uko	tekr	IkqjkO;kpk fnukad	vtZnkjk'kh ukrs
1	'kkys; iqjkok ¼ft- i- dsa- izkFk- 'kkGk] dkVk] rk- ft- okf'ke½	'kdqaryk xksfoan Bkdqj	Bkdqj	04-06-1941	vkth ¼vktksckph cfg.k½
2	tUe jftLVj uDdy ¼rgfly dk;kZy;] dkVk] rk- ft- okf'ke½	xksfoan oYn jkepanz Bkdqj ekLrj ;kl ,d L=h viR; 'kkarh >kY;kph tUeuksan	Bkdqj	28-02-1939	iatksck
3	tUe jftLVj uDdy ¼rgfly dk;kZy;] dkVk] rk- ft- okf'ke½	xksfoan jkepanz Bkdqj ;kl ,d lnk'kho ukokps iq:"k viR; >kY;kph tUeuksan	Bkdqj	24-04-1949	iatksck
4	tUe jftLVj uDdy ¼rgfly dk;kZy;] dkVk] rk- ft- okf'ke½	Jkepanz Bkdqj ;kl ,d iq:"k viR; >kY;kph tUeuksan	Bkdqj	18-09-1909	[kkij iatksck

¶25

The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Scrutiny Committee had forwarded the tribe claim of Petitioner for vigilance cell inquiry. The Vigilance Cell conducted the enquiry and submitted its report on 29/01/2025 to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner and thereby called for hearing along with written submission. The Vigilance Cell Officer only with an intention to discard the legitimate claim of the Petitioner collected the irrelevant material and made unsustainable observation in respect of old documents. The Petitioner

¶26

4 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶27

Judgment

¶28

submitted his reply on 03/03/2025 and requested for issuance caste validity certificate on the basis of documentary evidence prior to year 1950. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 21/03/2025, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶29

The Petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner without following the due procedure of law as well as without considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the documents prior to year 1950, which are having great probative value in determining the claim of the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner is invalidated on the grounds of area restriction and affinity, which is unsustainable in law.

¶30

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the

¶31

following citations :

¶32

(i) Writ Petition No. 3711/2024 , Madhavi d/o Tukaram Ingle Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, dated 06/08/2024;

¶33

5 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶34

Judgment

¶35

(ii) Writ Petition No.7320/2023 , Ganesh s/o Shridhar More & Anr. Vs. the Vice-Chairman MemberSecretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, dated 13/03/2024 and

¶36

(iii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785 .

¶37

As against this the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per Section 8, the burden is squarely on the Petitioner/applicant, who claims to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, he has to establish and prove that his claim is genuine. In that regard, the information provided by him with regard to the traits, characteristics, customs, rituals and practices of the community. The documents submitted by the Petitioner is of prior to 1950 but this is the single entry document and no corroborative document is placed on record by the Petitioner and no other documents were procured in vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance Officer expressed doubt upon the said documents as it cannot be ascertained that word Thakur is caste or surname. It is further submitted that the socio-cultural affinity and information furnished by the Petitioner during hearing and during course of vigilance enquiry

¶38

6 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶39

Judgment

¶40

and the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Officer, clearly shows that the Petitioner could not prove socio cultural affinity with “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. Therefore the Scrutiny Committee on relying correct appreciation of the fact on record rightly invalidated the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 21/03/2025 by recording well reasoned findings and there is no interference warranted.

¶41

Heard both the parties at length. Perused the original record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of Assistant Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the Petitioner.

¶42

For the sake of convenience family tree is reproduced

¶43

as under :

¶44

7 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶45

Judgment

¶46

From the Vigilance Cell Report, it appears that there are 14 documents placed on record by the Petitioner wherein the oldest document is of 1909 in respect of Ramchandra Thakur the great great grandfather of the Petitioner, wherein the Caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. The second document is of 1939 in respect of Govind S/o Ramchandra Thakur, great grandfather of the Petitioner, gave birth to a female child namely Shanti, wherein the caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. The third document is of 1949 in respect of Govind S/o Ramchandra Thakur, great grandfather of the Petitioner, gave birth to a male child namely Sadashiv, wherein the caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. The another entry is of 1941, which is school record of Shakuntala Govind Thakur, sister of grandfather, wherein the caste is shown as ‘Thakur’. The another entry of 1955 in respect of Sadashiv Govindrao grandfather of the Petitioner, his caste is shown as ‘Thakur’.

¶47

The remark against entry of 1909 is given as it is a single entry therefore, it is suspicious. The remark against the entry of 1939 is that there is no other evidence in respect of Shanti therefore, the said entry is suspicious. The third document of 1949 in respect of grandfather of the Petitioner, it

¶48

8 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶49

Judgment

¶50

termed as suspicious on the ground that it is not clear from the document that Thakur is surname or caste. The school record in respect of Shakuntala Govind Thakur dated 04/06/1941 termed as suspicious, as affidavit of the parents are not available. The document of 1955 is also discarded on the same ground. All these remarks totally absurded and passed for the sake of rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

¶51

The oldest entry of great great grandfather is of 18/09/1909. This document is having greatest probative value and just because it is a single entry, this documents cannot be discarded at any rate. This entry cannot be discarded on the ground that there is only entry of birth of one male child to Ramchandra Thakur. There are no corroborative evidence on school record or revenue record in support of this entry. It is also not clear that child born to Ramchandra. The Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that there is one son namely Govind Thakur born to Ramchandra Thakur and they are residents of Mouza Kata, Tahsil and District Washim, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this entry of 1909. Similarly the entries of 1939, 1949, 1941 and 1955, the remark of the

¶52

9 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶53

Judgment

¶54

Vigilance Cell is that those are suspicious is having no substance at all. When there is an entry of Birth Register of 1939, there is no question of any other supporting documents to be produced. The document pertaining to Govind Ramchandra Thakur of 1949 is treated as suspicious only on the ground that it is not clear from the birth entry that Thakur is surname or caste. If the document dated 24/04/1949 is perused, the Caste specifically mentioned as Thakur below the column in caste. So far as entry of 1949 is concerned, if the column No.4 is perused, it is in respect of details of the person to whom the child is born including the caste of the person. In view thereof, the objection of Inquiry Officer of Vigilance Cell that it cannot be concluded whether it is a surname or caste having no substance in view of the fact that there is no separate column of caste therefore, there is no question of any confusion as in the details of person, the caste is also mentioned.

¶55

So far as two documents of 1941 and 1955 in respect of school record is concerned, only due to inavilability of affidavit, those are termed as suspicious, in fact, we have come across many affidavits in school record, there is no column of

¶56

10 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶57

Judgment

¶58

caste in the affidavit and it is only for date of Birth of child. Most of the affidavits are having thumb impression of the parents. As such, this cannot be the reason for discarded the document of 1941 and 1955. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not applied its independent mind and relied on the report as it is.

¶59

Apart from this, the other reason for invalidating the claim of the Petitioner is that in sale-deeds, the caste is not mentioned nor permission was sought and the property sold to non tribal. The Vigilance Cell Officer has collected certain Saledeeds to discard the claim of the present Petitioner. This Court already concluded this issue and held that it is irrelevant and not create any embargo on the tribe claim of the Petitioner specifically when there are documents of 1909 to 1955 showing caste of the forefathers of the Petitioners as ‘Thakur’, which is having more probative value for determining the tribe claim of the Petitioner. The Sale-deeds, which are procured by the Vigilance Cell are of the period of 1988 onwards. As such, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be invalidated on this ground.

¶60

11 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶61

Judgment

¶62

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Writ Petition No.3711/2024 (supra), wherein relying on the Judgment of Maharashtra Adiwasi thakur Jamat Swarakshan

¶63

Samiti (supra) this Court held that,

¶64

“pre-constitutional documents have more probative value. Similarly, the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test particularly when the petitioner produced the pre-constitutional era documents on record”.

¶65

The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Judgment in Writ Petition No. 7320/2023 (supra), wherein relying on the Judgment of Maharashtra Adiwasi thakur Jamat

¶66

Swarakshan Samiti (supra) this Court held that,

¶67

“the affinity test could have got the importance if there were no documents to show the old documents of pre-independence era, the persons in blood relations belong to ‘Thakur’ Community”.

¶68

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on Maharashtra Adiwasi thakur Jamat Swarakshan

¶69

Samiti (supra) wherein it is held that,

¶70

“We must note that in the case of a person having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school or

¶71

12 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶72

Judgment

¶73

college records or any official records concerning the applicant or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons having the surname Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every case should not mechanically refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry including affinity test”.

¶74

So far as Sale-deeds are concerned, those are of the period of 1988 onwards. Moreover, it is noticed that to avoid permission from the Collector, they did not mention the caste in their sale-deeds, however, it has consequences to be followed in Land Revenue Code and other relevant enactment. Therefore, merely because subsequent sale-deeds of 1988 has not shown the caste of person of blood relatives of the Petitioner have no baring to the caste claim of the Petitioner specifically when he has produced the documents from 1909 to 1955.

¶75

In view of this law position, the order passed by the Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is erroneous, perverse and liable to be set aside. The Petitioner duly established that he

¶76

13 J-WP No.3632.2025.odt

¶77

Judgment

¶78

belongs to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶79

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶80

(ii) The impugned order dated 21/03/2025, passed by the Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in case No. 11/502/Edu/062023/5774, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶81

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that he belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

¶82

(iv) The Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of “ Thakur ” Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner – Darshan S/o Anant Wankhede within a period of three weeks.

¶83

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

¶84

as to costs.

¶85

( RAJ D. WAKODE, J. ) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶86

Kirtak

Darshan S/O Anant Wankhede v. S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Dy. Director/Member Secy., Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan S/O Anant Wankhede v. S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Dy. Director/Member Secy., Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay S/O Govardhan Patkar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Member / Sec. Amravati

Himanshu S/O Mangesh Dhote vs Dy. Commissioner and Vice-President, the S.T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Ors.

Sheetal Manish Uike vs Manish Daddelal Uike

Vitthal S/O Manikrao Pullewad Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, S.T. Caste Cert. Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and Anr.

Milind S/O Madhukar Nandanwar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sau. Dhandevi W/O Kuldeep Waghmare vs Kuldeep S/O Rajendra Waghmare