MEENA SHIVRAJ PAYAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, AND ORS

                                                             14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              WRIT PETITION NO. 10434 OF 2010
Meena d/o Shivraj Payak                     .....Petitioner

               Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.                               .....Respondents
                                  .....
Mr. N. C. Phadnis (through V.C.), for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, A.G.P., for the
Respondent-State.

Mr. Sachin Wadhawe, Law Officer, Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Gondia.
                         ..…
                                   CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                           SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                   DATE     : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.:-

1.              Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent

of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.

2.              Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

3.              Heard learned Addl.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

4.              Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Nagpur Division was not justified in applying the affinity test in the


Manisha                                                                      1/7
MANISHA    Digitally signed by
           MANISHA
BALKRISHNA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
           Date: 2026.09.30
TALEKAR    18:11:20 +0530
                                                        14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


present facts as there are pre-constitutional documents of the

Petitioner’s father as well as uncle which are at page nos.76 and 78

of the paper book which clearly indicates that the caste is recorded as

‘Thakur’.

5.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra

and Ors.1 held as under :

       21. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the
       Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary
       evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the
       application to the vigilance cell for conducting the school, home
       and other enquiry. Therefore, in every case, as a matter of
       routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward
       the application to vigilance cell for conducting an enquiry. When
       sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny
       Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the
       applicant that the case should be referred to vigilance cell, it
       follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order
       recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the
       documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the case
       to the vigilance cell, application of mind to the material
       produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the
       application of mind must be reflected in the order-sheets of the
       Scrutiny Committee.

       22. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases
       the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to vigilance cell. One
       of the tests is as laid down in Madhuri Patil!. It lays down that
       the documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste
       of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest
       probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to produce
1    (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415



Manisha                                                                 2/7
                                                        14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


     authentic and genuine documents of the pre-Constitution period
     showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no
     reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no
     reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST Order. In
     such a case, a reference to vigilance cell is not warranted at all.


      23. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of
      2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur case?), the Full Bench of the
      Bombay High Court has noted that people having the surname
      "Thakur" belong to both forward castes and various backward
      castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that in
      every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur, it cannot
      be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the applicant
      belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in Entry 44 of the
      Maharashtra List. However, 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 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. The reference to the vigilance
      cell can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
      with the material produced by the applicant.

                                                (emphasis supplied)

6.        This being the position, in view of the decision in case of

Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) ,



Manisha                                                                 3/7
                                                        14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


there would have been no hesitation on our part in allowing the

Petition. However, from the findings of the Scrutiny Committee we

find that, there are some documents on record which mentions the

caste of the paternal ancestor as ‘Kshatriya’.

7.        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the caste

‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya) on documents at Sr. nos.27, 28 and 29 was

relied by the Scrutiny Committee. It is the submission of learned

Counsel for the Petitioner that ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya) is not mentioned

as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or forming part of Other

Backward Caste in any of the relevant Notifications. It is submitted

that only on the basis of the affinity test the caste claim of the

Petitioner is rejected without properly considering the pre-

constitutional documents.

8.        Learned Addl.G.P. on the other hand supported the

impugned Order. It is submitted that the impugned Order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee is a well reasoned order. It is submitted that

all the documents have been duly considered and since there were

documents on record which clearly mentions the caste of his paternal

ancestor as ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya), the caste claim of the Petitioner was

rightly rejected resorting to the affinity test. It is submitted that the


Manisha                                                                 4/7
                                                         14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


affinity test was not the sole basis for rejecting the caste claim but

the Scrutiny Committee has also taken into consideration that there

are documents on record indicating the caste of the Petitioner’s

paternal ancestors as belonging to ‘Chhatri’ (Kshatriya).

9.        Heard. A perusal of the impugned Order reveals that though

the documents relied upon by the Petitioner have been adverted to,

the Scrutiny Committee, in paragraph no.23(e) has observed that the

pre-constitutional documents cannot be accepted, as the Petitioner

has utterly failed in the vital affinity test. No doubt, there is a

reference to some other documents where the caste of the paternal

ancestors has been recorded as Chattri (Kshatriya) but in our

opinion, the Scrutiny Committee was overwhelmed with the affinity

test.

10.       It is well settled law that the affinity test is not the litmus

test to be applied while discarding the caste claim. This is precisely

what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee in the present case.

The pre-constitutional documents of the paternal ancestors of the

Petitioner have the highest probative value.


11.       In such view of the matter, we find substance in the


Manisha                                                                  5/7
                                                        14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is fit case for

remand for reconsideration of the Petitioner’s claim for grant of

Validity Certificate on the basis of well settled principles governing

the consideration of such caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee.

Hence, the following Order:


                                 ORDER


          (i)   The impugned Order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the

          Respondent    No.2-Scheduled    Tribe   Certificate    Scrutiny

          Committee, Nagpur Division is quashed and set aside.


          (ii) The matter is remanded to the Respondent No.2-

          Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

          Division to examine the same afresh in the light of the

          aforesaid observations by the law laid down in the case of

          Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti

          (supra).



          (iii) The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2-

          Scrutiny Committee on 14th October, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.




Manisha                                                                 6/7
                                                           14-WP-10434-2010 .doc


          (iv) The Scrutiny Committee shall make an endeavour to

          decide the caste claim expeditiously within a period of four

          months from 14th October, 2026.


          (v) If the Petitioner wants to rely upon additional documents,

          the Petitioner is at liberty to rely upon such documents.


          (vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

10.       Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

11.       In view of above, Writ Petition No. 10434 of 2010 stands

disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                                (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                                    7/7