Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) vs S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Member Secretary and Ors.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6922-DB

¶2

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 1/14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5354 OF 2024

¶5

Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) Aged about 60 years, Occ.: Retired, R/o. C/o. Infratech Phrase-2, Flat No. 302, 3^rd Floor, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-440027

¶6

…. PETITIONER

¶7

. ..VERSUS…

¶8

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Near Rangoli Ground, Shashtri Nagar, Yavatmal, through its Member Secretary.

¶9

Municipal Corporation, Nashik, through its Municipal Commissioner, New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422001.

¶10

Education Officer, Municipal Corporation, New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422001.

¶11

The Account General, West High Court Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001. … RESPONDENTS

¶12

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 2/14

¶13

Shri R.D.Karode, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. D.V.Sapkarl, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 4/State Shri A.R. Kaplay, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶14

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

¶15

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 04/07/2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 18/07/2025 JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶17

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶18

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26/02/2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short, “the Scrutiny Committee”) whereby invalidated the Scheduled Tribe Certificate of the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed to the establishment of respondent nos. 2 and 3 at Municipal Corporation, Nashik.

¶20

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 3/14

¶21

She stood superannuated on 31/12/2018. Her first appointment on the post of ‘Upshikshika’ was against the post earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category. Her tribe claim was forwarded by respondent no. 3 on 29/06/2022 for validity to the Scrutiny Committee. It is a matter of fact that, the real brother of the petitioner and her nephew are already granted validity certificates as they are belonging to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee forwarded the tribe claim to the Vigilance Squad for inquiry. On receipt of Vigilance inquiry report, the petitioner furnished her explanation on 14/02/2024. The respondent no. 1 - Scrutiny Committee without considering the relevant documents having great probative value and without considering the validity certificate issued to the real brother of the petitioner, rejected the tribe claim on very unjustifiable reason. There is no compliance of the rules by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶22

It is alleged that, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the document pertaining to Suryabhan Tukaram

¶23

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 4/14

¶24

Thakur i.e. extract of the record of rights of 09/01/1917, 08/02/1917, 26/11/1919, 12/01/1921, 16/04/1927 and 13/05/1935, and recorded some strange entries showing ‘Bhat’. It is pointed out that, the claim of the petitioner’s nephew namely Yashpal Avinash Suryawanshi and Yashwant Naresh Suryawanshi came to be rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on the same ground that, there is entry of ‘Bhat’ but this Court set aside the order dated 04/04/2022 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and declared that, Yashpal and Yashwant are ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribes and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificates in their favour.

¶25

The real brother of the petitioner namely Vijay Vitthalrao Suryawanshi is also granted validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee on 01/03/2021, which was also placed before the Scrutiny Committee along with an affidavit of real brother. Due to invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, her retiral benefits are

¶26

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 5/14

¶27

withheld by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 though she stood retired w.e.f. 31/12/2018.

¶28

Though the learned AGP for the State supported the order passed by the respondent no. 1 – Scrutiny Committee, the genealogy produced at page 40 is not denied. The petitioner’s name so also her real brother Vijay’s name are reflecting in the said genealogy. The names of nephew Yashpal and Yashwant are also reflecting in the genealogy. The petitioner placed on record the documents pertaining to Suryabhan Tukaram Thakur of the years 29/09/1924 and 23/07/1936. The chart in this respect is as under:-

¶29

(B) vtZnkjkus nkO;ki`”V~;FkZ uLrhlkscr lknj dsysys nLr,sot%&

¶30

v- dz-	miyC/k iqjkok	uko	vtZnkjk’kh jDr ukrs	iqjkO;kr ueqn tkr	iqjkO;kps o”kZ o fnukad	‘ksjk
1-	tUeuksan uDdy] rglhy dk;kZy; ;orekG	lq;ZHkku Bkdwj ;kl ,d iq:”k viR; >kY;kph uksan	vktksck	Bkdwj	29-09-1924
2-	LFkkoj ekyeRrk [kjsnh [kr] lg nq;~;e fuca/kd dz-	1 lq;ZHkku rqdkjke Bkdwj		-----	23-07-1936

¶31

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 6/14

¶32

3-	lsok iqLrdkP;k ifgY;k ikukph uDdy] iz’kklukf/kdkjh f’k{k.k eaMG egkuxjikyhdk] ukf’kd	lkS- lqjs[kk f’kjh’k Bkdwj@dq- lqjs[kk foB~By lq;Zoa’kh	vtZnkj	Bkdwj	-----
4-	‘kkys; iqjkok] ofj”B izkFk- ejkBh ‘kkGk] lkojxko rk- dGac ft- ;orekG	foB~By lq;ZHkku lq;Zoa’kh	oMhy	Bkdwj	06-07-1932
5-	‘kkys; iqjkok] ft-i- izkFk- dU;k ‘kkGk] iqyxko rk- nsoGh ft- o/kkZ	dq- lqjs[kk foB~Byjko lq;Zoa’kh	vtZnkj	Bkdwj	01-07-1966

¶33

Apart from this, the Vigilance Cell collected some documents of revenue entries of one Suryabhan S/o. Tukaram Patil showing that person’s caste as ‘Bhat’. The said entries are in relation to survey nos. 12/3, 90 and 20. There is a communication dated 27/02/1924 by the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal whereby she placed on record the certified copies of extract of Birth-Death Register wherein it is shown that, Suryabhan Thakur gave birth to one female child on 11/07/27 and pere patrak for the year 1923-24 wherein the name of Suryabhan S/o. Tukaram Thakur is reflecting. Similarly, in the year 1928-29, the said Suryabhan

¶34

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 7/14

¶35

S/o. Tukaram Thakur was residing at Dahegaon whereas another revenue entry is of the year 1930-31. One extract of pherphar register of the year 1930-1931 is showing the name of Suryabhan Tukaram Thakur. All these documents consistently show that, Suryabhan Tukaram is ‘Thakur’ and not ‘Bhat’. Some entries of one Patil showing ‘Bhat’ are relied on without demonstrating how this Patil is the same person.

¶36

It is not the case that, these documents were not before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee for no reason considered the documents of one Suryabhan Tukaram Bhat pertaining to pere patrak register and not given any consideration to the pere patrak for the years 192425, 1925-26, 1927-28, 1928-29, 1932, 1933-34, 1934-35, 1935-36, 1936-37, 1937-38 and 1938-39 which are the documents duly verified by the Vigilance Cell in an inquiry pertaining to the real brother of the petitioner namely Vijay. The eleven entries of pere patrak are showing the name of Suryabhan Tukaram Thakur. The Scrutiny Committee relied on one entry of

¶37

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 8/14

¶38

Suryabhan Tukaram Patil and observed that, his caste comes under the list of Other Backward Class at Sr. No. 83 as ‘Leva Patil’. So far as the objection of the Scrutiny Committee is that, the certificate obtained by the brother of the petitioner i.e. Vijay Vitthalrao Suryawanshi, that has not been obtained from the Competent Authority is already dealt with by this Court in para 9 in the case of Yashpal s/o. Avinash Suryawanshi V/s. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in Writ Petition No. 4367 of 2022 decided on 26/08/2022 . Though many documents placed on record by the petitioner as many as 12 documents, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered which pertains to year 1923-24 upto 1930-31 about pere patrak and extract of index, and pherphar register dated 16/04/27.

¶39

We called the record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee pertaining to the real brother of the petitioner namely Vijay. After perusal of record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee produced by the

¶40

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 9/14

¶41

learned AGP, it is also clear that the petitioner has placed on record the same documents.

¶42

Moreover, as the brother of the petitioner is already granted validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, it was duly discussed by this Court in its judgment and held that, the certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, cannot be the reason to discard the certificate. In fact, we are of the confirmed opinion that, in view of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, 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 (for short, “the Act of 2000”), there is procedure given for confiscation and cancellation of false Caste Certificate. No such procedure is adopted by the Scrutiny Committee while discarding the validity certificate issued in favour of real brother. Under Section of 7 of the Act of 2000, an opportunity is also required to be given to the

¶43

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 10/14

¶44

person concerned before taking steps.

¶45

The Scrutiny Committee has discarded the

¶46

validity certificate issued in favour of the real brother of the petitioner i.e. Vijay Vitthalrao Suryawanshi on the ground that, he has not obtained the caste certificate from District Yavatmal and obtained the caste certificate from District Wardha. It is not permissible as per law. However, the Scrutiny Committee failed to consider that, in the matter of Yashpal and Yashwant i.e. nephew of the petitioner have filed the caste certificates of District Yavatmal and their claims were allowed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4367 of 2022 and set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Both of them are in blood relation of the petitioner. In view thereof, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have allowed the claim of the petitioner. The certificates were issued to both of the nephew after due vigilance inquiry, therefore, there is no reason to decide the matter against the petitioner and invalidate her caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee relied on

¶47

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 11/14

¶48

various entries in respect of one Suryabhan Tukaram Bhat, however, Suryabhan Tukaram is shown as ‘Thakur’ in various revenue entries which were duly verified by the Vigilance Cell while deciding the claim of Vijay as well as of Yashpal and Yashwant.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and ors. {2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401} wherein this Court held in para 7 as

¶50

under:-

¶51

“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.”

¶52

and concluded in para 9 as under:-

¶53

“9. ………….. that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of

¶54

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 12/14

¶55

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 caste 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.”

¶56

In view of the fact that, after going through the

¶57

record and proceedings of Vijay, it is clear that, there are revenue entries as claimed by the petitioner from the year 1917 to 1935 wherein the name of Suryabhan Tukaram Thakur is shown. The Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered that, the person belongs to ‘Bhat’ caste is not in

¶58

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 13/14

¶59

relation to the petitioner’s family. The original record of Vijay was called and the learned AGP produced the same. It appears that, all the revenue entries were verified in the matter of Vijay by the Vigilance Cell as well as the Scrutiny Committee and those entries appear to be genuine. It was the duty of the Scrutiny Committee that, when there is already validity certificate issued in favour of the real brother of the petitioner, then to call the record and verify the same, failing which, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Scrutiny Committee considered the irrelevant documents to discard the claim of the petitioner. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-

¶60

ORDER

¶61

The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶62

The impugned order dated 26/02/2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 – the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in the matter of the petitioner -Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi

¶63

WP 5354-2024-J.odt 14/14

¶64

(Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur), in Case No. 5/502/Ser/082021/182820, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶65

It is declared that the petitioner has duly established that, she belongs to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, which is entry No. 44 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

¶66

1. The respondent no. 1 - the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal to issue validity certificate of ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner within a period of two weeks.

¶67

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶68

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶69

B.T.Khapekar

¶70

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/07/2025 18:05:51

Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) v. S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Member Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) v. S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Member Secretary and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyamsunder Ramgopal Malpani and Another Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Vaishnavi Ravindra Yelure and Ors. Vs Mr. Vipin Itankar, Collector and District Magistrate, Nagpur

Ayazuddin S/O Aminuddin Syed vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Makhanlal S/O Shrikhargeram Bohat Vs Dinesh Gendlal Fatod and Another

Kamala Wd/O. Nikhil Kumar Banerjee and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Land Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre Vs Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Dept. of Telecommunication, Thr. Secy. (T) and Ors.