Ishika D/O Gajanan Kelkar and Another Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Its Research Officer and Member Secy.

¶1

1 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶2

Judgment

¶3

2025:BHC-NAG:9526-DB

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7468 OF 2024

¶6

1. Ishika D/o Gajanan Kelkar , Aged about 23 years, Occ. Education,

¶7

2 ) Shravan S/o Gajanan Kelkar , Aged about 19 years, Occ. Education, Both R/o. Saraf Line, Near Hanuman Mandir, Rajapura, Karanja Lad, Tah. Karanja, District Washim …. PETITIONERS

¶8

// VERSUS //

¶9

Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee Yavatmal, District Yavatmal, Through its Research Officer and Member Secretary

¶10

…. RESPONDENT

¶11

-------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. T. U. Tathod, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent.

¶12

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

¶13

DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 09.09.2025 DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 20.09.2025

¶14

JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶15

2 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶16

Judgment

¶17

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties at the stage of admission.

¶18

By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 05/03/2024 passed by the Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as “the Scrutiny Committee”) whereby the tribe claims of the Petitioners of belonging to ‘Raj’ Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected.

¶19

The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under:-

¶20

The Petitioner No. 1 has completed her B.Sc. Nursing. The Petitioner No. 2 is pursuing his H.S.C. According to the Petitioners, they belong to tribe ‘Raj’ which is recognized as the Scheduled Tribe category as per Entry No. 18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The tribe claims of the Petitioners were forwarded for verification to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Scrutiny Committee has also invalidated the

¶21

3 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶22

Judgment

¶23

tribe claims of cousin uncle and aunt of the Petitioners. The said invalidation was challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 4660/2017 and connected matters. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by this Court by the order dated 07/09/2023 thereby directing the Scrutiny Committee to issue caste validity certificates to the cousin uncle and aunt of the Petitioners.

¶24

The cousin brother of the Petitioners, whose claim was also pending like the Petitioners, had also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6029/2023 seeking validity certificate in the light of the directions issued to the Scrutiny Committee in the above Writ Petitions. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate to the cousin brother of the Petitioners.

¶25

It is submitted that the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, after completion of the enquiry by the Vigilance Cell, has issued show cause notice to the Petitioners along with copy of the Vigilance Cell report. In response to the show cause notice, the Petitioners filed their reply along with copies of the above judgments of this Court wherein directions were issued to

¶26

4 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶27

Judgment

¶28

the Scrutiny Committee to grant validity certificates to the relatives of the Petitioners.

¶29

It is submitted that in spite of giving detailed explanation, submissions of various documents of preindependence era and various judgments of this Court, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claims of the Petitioners by the impugned order dated 05/03/2024. The said order dated 05/03/2024 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that

¶31

the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claims of the Petitioners without verifying the genuineness and authenticity of the documents of the years 1918, 1928, 1934, 1943 and 1947. The Vigilance Cell Report and the impugned order mention that since the forefathers of the Petitioners were educated before independence, it further observed that the forefather of the Petitioners come under the main stream of Society and because of this, it cannot be said that the Petitioners belong to ‘Raj’ Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the Scrutiny

¶32

5 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶33

Judgment

¶34

Committee has also not considered the judgments of this Court in which direction was issued to the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificates to the relatives of the Petitioners. Hence, he prays that the impugned order dated 05/03/2024 be quashed and set aside and direction may be issued to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificates to the Petitioners.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-

¶36

(i) Writ Petition No. 5564/2016 (Sanjay Pralhadrao Kelkar vs. Deputy Director/Chairman, Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & another) along with connected matters;

¶37

(ii) Writ Petition No. 6029/2023 (Sahil Sanjay Kelkar vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal & another);

¶38

(iii) Writ Petition No. 08/2025 (Aditi S/o Sanjay Kelkar vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal);

¶39

(iv) Writ Petition No. 7473/2024 (Rutuja D/o Ravindra Kelkar & another vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal); and

¶40

(v) Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur & Others, reported on 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.

¶41

6 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶42

Judgment

¶43

On the contrary, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee supports the impugned order. He has submitted that the Vigilance Enquiry and the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Officer clearly show that the Petitioners could not prove their social cultural affinity with ‘Raj’ Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that Shri Kodape, District President of SC/ST Organization Confederation, New Delhi, Branch at Yavatmal lodged complaint against the Petitioners and submitted that the Petitioners are taking benefit of synonymous nomenclature and submitted false & bogus certificates on record, so also, various adverse entries are mentioned in the report of the Vigilance Cell. Insofar as nonconsideration of the judgments of this Court by the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it is submitted that in the Vigilance Enquiry, adverse contra material i.e. tribes such as Maratha, Gavandi, Marathi Raj, Gond, Rajgond have been procured, which were not available before the then Committee at the time of passing of the order, so also before this Court in the respective Petitions. It is submitted that the explanation submitted by the Petitioners to the Vigilance Cell was not satisfactory as the oldest documents submitted were not reliable,

¶44

7 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶45

Judgment

¶46

hence, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioners. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee does not suffer from any illegality, and hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners may be dismissed.

¶47

Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record and proceedings placed on record by the learned Additional Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the Petitioners.

¶48

For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as under :

¶49

The Petitioners have placed on record various

¶50

documents, out of which following are the documents prior to cut off date :

¶51

8 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶52

Judgment

¶53

v- dz-	nLr,sotkps Lo:i	nLr,sotkojhy O;Drhps uko	tkr	iqjkO;kpk fnukad	vtZnkjka'kh ukrs
1	'kkys; iqjkok ¼ft-i- izkFk ejkBh 'kkGk½	eqjyh/kj fo'oukFk	jkt	19-06-1946	vtZnkjkaps pqyr dkdk
2	'kkys; iqjkok ¼ft- i- izkFk- ejkBh 'kkGk dz-3 dkjatk ¼ykM½ft- okf'ke½	jes'k fo”oukFk dsGdj	ejkBh jkt	01-07-1953	vtZnkjkaps pqyr dkdk
3	'kkys; iqjkok ¼u- i- izkFk- ejkBh 'kkGk] dz-3] dkjatk] ft- okf'ke½	txUukFk ek/kojko O;olk;&jktdke	jkt	21-09-1932	vtZnkjkaps vktksck
4	tUe izek.ki= ¼u- i- dkjatk ykM] ft- okf'ke½	Ekk/kks flrkjke jkt	jkt	tUe fnukad 30-07-1928	vtZnkjkaps iatksck
5	'kkys; iqjkok ¼ft- i- izkFk- ejkBh 'kkGk dz-3] dkjatk] ft- okf”ke½	txUukFk ek/kojko	jkt	03-07-1939	vtZnkjkaps vktksck
6	tUe izek.ki= ¼u- i- dkjatk] ft- okf'ke½	olark fo”oukFk ek/kojkt	jkt	10-02-1947
7	'kkys; iqjkok ¼eq- ts- u- i- ek/; fo?kky; o dfu"B foKku egkfo?kky;] dkjatk]ft- vdksyk½	izYgknjko ek/kojko dsGdj	jkt	16-07-1952	vtZnkjkaps pqyr vktksck
8	tUe izek.ki= ¼u- i- dkjatk ¼ykM½ ft- okf'ke½	fo'oukFk ek/ko jkt ;kl ,d L=h viR; >kY;kph uksan	jkt	tUe fnukad 21-08-1943 uksan.kh fnukad 22-08-1943	vtZnkjkaps pqyr vktksck
9	tUe izek.ki= ¼u- i- dkjatk ¼ykM½] ft- okf”ke½	Ekk/kks flrkjke jkt ;kl ,d iq:’k viR; txUukFk >kY;kph uksan	jkt	30-07-1928	vtZnkjkaps iatksck
10	LFkkoj cf{kli= ¼lg nq;e fuca/kd oxZ&2] dz-1] vdksyk ;kaps dk;kZy;½	Ekk/kojko flrkjke dsGdj	jkt	22-06-1915	vtZnkjkaps iatksck

¶54

9 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶55

Judgment

¶56

11	tUe izek.ki= ¼u- i- dkjatk ykM] ft- okf”ke½	Ekk/kksjko flrkjke jkt ;kl ,d L=h viR; >kY;kph uksan	jkt	11-02-1934	vtZnkjkaps iatksck
12	tUe izek.ki= ¼uxj ifj’kn] dkjatk ¼ykM½] ft- okf”ke½	Ekk/kojko flrksck jkt ;kl ,d iq:’k viR; >kY;kph uksan	jkt	29-05-1918	vtZnkjkaps iatksck

¶57

There are some documents procured by the Vigilance Cell, however, the documents are subsequent to 1950. In the documents of 1943 and 1946 remark column shows that the family tree of grandmother showing caste ‘Maratha’. All the documents at Sr. No.1 to 23 procured by Vigilance Cell cannot be considered for deciding caste claim of the Petitioners as the said entries are through the wife of grandfather and cousin grandfather. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is somehow bent upon to invalidate the tribe certificate in favour of the Petitioners.

¶58

On perusal of the old documents produced by the Petitioners, those are rejected for no reason. The school entry in respect of cousin uncle dated 19/06/1946 is discarded on the ground that there is no affidavit in support of that entry of the parents. Similarly, the document dated 03/07/1939 in respect of

¶59

10 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶60

Judgment

¶61

grandfather of the Petitioners is also discarded on the same ground i.e. for want of affidavit of the parents. The Scrutiny Committee must know that in affidavit of the parents with the school, there is no column of caste, only the date of birth is required to be affirmed. The entry of 21/09/1932 in respect of grandfather of the Petitioners is also discarded on the same ground.

¶62

The document dated 30/07/1928 is concerned, which is birth certificate in respect of Madho Sitaram Raj, who gave birth to one male child. Though it is observed that in the said entry of birth the name of child is shown as Jagannath, this document was discarded on their mere suspicion. The birth entry of 21/08/1943 showing Vishwanath Madhav Raj, who gave birth a male child, though it is verified, it was discarded on the ground that there is no reference which child is born. The learned Members of Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered that the name of the father of the child is Vishwanath Madhav Raj, their place of residence is matching with the forefather’s residence and name of Vishwanth Madhav Raj is

¶63

11 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶64

Judgment

¶65

appearing in the family tree. From this document it appears that the delivery was carried out in the house itself.

¶66

There is a document pertaining to the greatgrandfather of the Petitioners dated 30/07/1928, which shows that the great-grandfather gave birth to a male child namely Jagannath. Similarly, all other documents showing tribe as “Raj” are discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee without any reason and some extraneous reasons showing them as suspicious. While doing so, the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that there are validity certificates issued in favour of uncle Sanjay Kelkar, Ravindra Kelkar, paternal aunt Jaishree Kelkar and cousin Sahil Sanjay Kelkar of the Petitioners. Ignoring the judgments passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5564/2016, 4660/2017, 4661/2017 and 6029/2023, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exceeding its jurisdiction passed the impugned order. The documents procured by the Vigilance Cell, as already stated are of the persons related through maternal side and those cannot be considered for invalidation.

¶67

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the Judgment in Writ Petition No.5564/2016 with connected

¶68

12 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶69

Judgment

¶70

matters (supra), wherein this Court granted validity to Sanjay Pralhadrao Kelkar, Ravindra Pralhad Kelkar and Ku. Jayashri Pralhad Kelkar. In the said Judgment this Court relied on Apoorva D/o Vijay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 , Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Sate of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J.785 and Priya Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 909 . This Court held that,

¶71

“It has been consistently held that preconstitutional documents have greater evidentiary value and entries made therein can be safely relied upon. However, ignoring this dictum, merely on the above ground, the learned Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim.”

¶72

We are of the considered opinion that in view of the entries made in the School Leaving Certificates, Birth and Death Register, all of which are pre-constitutional documents, wherein the caste is recorded as “Raj” of the grandfather, father and uncle which clearly established the claim of the Petitioners as they belong to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe.

¶73

13 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶74

Judgment

¶75

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also

¶76

placed reliance on Apoorva D/o Vijay Nichale (supra), wherein in para 9 it is held as under :

¶77

“9. 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.”

¶78

In the matter of Sanjay Pralhadrao Kelkar (supra), this Court considered the documents which are now rejected on erroneous grounds. This Court held that there cannot be any two opinions about the veracity and genuineness of the entries

¶79

14 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶80

Judgment

¶81

made therein which unequivocally demonstrate that the ancestor of the Petitioners belong to the Tribe “Raj” which has been declared as a Schedule Tribe by way of amendment dated 29/10/1956 in entry 12 (Part IV) which has been carried forwarded as entry 18 in the amendment to the Presidential (Schedule Tribe) Order 1950, dated 18/09/1976. In respect of this decision, the Scrutiny Committee is having audacity to pass such a decision relying on the documents from the maternal side and discarding the documents erroneously which are old and from paternal side. As such, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is perverse, unsustainable and needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶82

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶83

(ii) The impugned order dated 05/03/2024, passed by the Respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in case Nos. (1) 11/502/Edu/082023/6597 and (2) 11/502/Edu/ 082023/6595, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶84

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that they belong to tribe “Raj” Scheduled Tribe entry No.18.

¶85

15 J-WP No.7468.2024.odt

¶86

Judgment

¶87

(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to issue validity certificates of “Raj” Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of three weeks.

¶88

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above

¶89

terms. No order as to costs.

¶90

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

¶91

Kirtak

Ishika D/O Gajanan Kelkar and Another v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Its Research Officer and Member Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ishika D/O Gajanan Kelkar and Another v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Its Research Officer and Member Secy.

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

Dr. Swapnil S/O Bhajandas Kamble Vs Sau. Manisha W/O Swapnil Kamble

Mahadeo S/O. Madhav Mankar and Others Vs the Collector, Nagpur and Others

Tata Aig General Ins. Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs Parth @ Kanaha S/O Jitendra Khandelwal Thr. Father Jitendra Satyanarayan Khandelwal and Others

Swargiya Radhabai Dorlikar Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur Thr. President and Others Vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Another

Sanjay S/O Manohar Watane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Ainullah Khan S/O. Gulab Khan Vs Shri. Satish Gawande, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Telhara, Akola