Quashed

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Apr 2026WP/13816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioners' Scheduled Tribe claim. The court relied on a prior decision granting conditional validity to a blood relative and quashed the impugned order, directing issuance of the certificate subject to reverification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue caste validity certificate for 'Koli Mahadev' ST subject to reverification.

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jadhav and Another vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:16192-DB

¶2

(1) 68 W. P. 13816-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

68 WRIT PETITION NO. 13816 OF 2025

¶5

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jadhav, Age : 41 Years, Occ. Service, R/o. Sundarwadi, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 2. Ravindra Tejrao Jadhav, Age : 36 Years, Occ. Service, R/o. as above. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Ch. Sambhajinagar Through its Deputy Director (R.) 3. The Collector, Collector Office, Buldhna, 4. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment), Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. .. RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale …

¶6

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

¶7

DATED : APRIL 15, 2026

¶8

FINAL ORDER ( PER ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J):-

¶9

(2)

¶10

68 W. P. 13816-2025.odt

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondents.

¶12

By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, by which the tribe claim of the petitioners of belonging to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the distant blood relatives of the petitioners namely Mayank Kailas Jadhav and Rohit Yuvraj Jadhav, whose tribe claims were invalidated, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10373/2024 and this Court, after considering the selfsame record, granted conditional validity to those petitioners by an order dated 30.09.2024. He therefore urge that in the light of validity granted by this Court to those petitioners, the petitioners deserve to be granted conditional validity.

¶14

Learned A.G.P., on the other hand, would submit that, the Scrutiny Committee, while passing the impugned order, has considered several contra entries as well as the fact about manipulation of record. He would submit that, the Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners has rightly considered the documents, wherein the contra entries of “Koli”

¶15

(3)

¶16

68 W. P. 13816-2025.odt

¶17

Scheduled Tribe has been shown. He would rely on the order passed by this Court in the case of Sudarshan Poshatti Kankawad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others decided by this Court on 06.10.2007 in Writ Petition No. 5890 of 2006 and submits that, even one contra entry would disentitle the claimant from claiming the validity.

¶18

Be that as it may, we find that this Court has considered the selfsame record in the case of Mayank Kailas Jadhav (supra) and has granted conditional validity recording the fact that there is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioners with the validity holder.

¶19

We, therefore, find that since neither the Scrutiny Committee nor the learned A.G.P. have disputed the relationship of the petitioners with the said validity holder, to whom this Court has granted validity, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition partly. We, therefore, pass the following order

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(I) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶22

(II) The impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

¶23

(III) The respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue caste validity certificate to the petitioners as belonging to “ Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe immediately in the prescribed proforma.

¶24

(IV) The validity certificates of the petitioners shall be subject

¶25

(4)

¶26

68 W. P. 13816-2025.odt

¶27

to outcome of the reverification undertaken by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee of the validity holder.

¶28

(V) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.

¶29

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ) JUDGE

¶30

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Ysk

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rutuja Nanasaheb Salme and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.

Nilesh Rajkumar Boinwad vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

Shantanu Santosh Satalwad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.

Mrudula Sanjayrao Shamraj through Gurdian Sanjayrao Durgadasrao Shamraj vs the District Caste Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Others

Panjabrao Devrao Kale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Valmik Bhaurao Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra and Others