Bombay High Court

RUSHANK SITARAM KATASKAR MINOR THROU. SITARAM VITTHAL KATASKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS SEC. TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ANR

Decided: 27 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee must consider the valid caste certificates of the petitioner’s paternal relatives and issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner, and that mere show‑cause notices do not suffice to invalidate such certificates.

Summary

The petitioner, a minor represented by his father, sought to quash the order of the Scrutiny Committee that invalidated his Scheduled Tribe (Koli Malhar) caste certificate, which he needed for admission to a technical course. He had submitted his own certificate and those of his paternal relatives, which had previously been validated by the Committee without a police vigilance inquiry. The Committee, after a police inquiry into the petitioner’s case, invalidated his certificate, citing alleged document tampering and pending show‑cause notices against his relatives. Relying on precedents that require the Committee to consider relatives’ valid certificates and that show‑cause notices alone are insufficient, the Court partially allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Committee to issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a week, while allowing the Committee to reopen the case if the relatives’ certificates are later invalidated. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee must accept caste validity certificates of a petitioner’s paternal relatives despite the absence of a police vigilance inquiry.
Whether the issuance of show‑cause notices alleging fraud against the relatives’ certificates warrants invalidation of the petitioner’s own certificate.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a caste validity certificate for admission purposes under the Scheduled Tribe category.

Subjects

caste certificate
scheduled tribe
validity certificate
scrutiny committee
police vigilance inquiry
show cause notice
reservation
writ petition
admission

Judgment

WP-10712-2026-O.doc

Sharayu Khot.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10712 OF 2026

Rushank Sitaram Kataskar, Minor,
Thru father and natural guardian
Sitaram Vitthal Kataskar …Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

----------
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Mr. Jagdish C. Kawale for the Petitioner.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondents – State.
----------

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J

Reserved on : 20 August 2026
Pronounced on : 27 August 2026

ORDER : (Per R.I. Chagla, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

SHARAYU
PANDURANG
consent of the parties.
KHOT

Digitally
signed by
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
Date:
2026.08.27
17:27:46
+0530
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and

setting aside of the impugned order dated 23rd July 2026 passed by

1/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner was

issued a Caste Certificate by the Competent Authority belonging to

"Koli Malhar” Scheduled Tribe.

3. The Petitioner had submitted his Caste Certificate along

with requisite supporting documents before Respondent No. 2 -

Scrutiny Committee for validation for the purpose of education on

26th December 2025.

4. The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee referred the

Petitioner's case to the Police Vigilance Cell for inquiry and after

conducting the detailed inquiry, the Police Vigilance Cell submitted its

Report before the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee on 29th

June 2026.

5. The Petitioner appeared for MHT-CET (PCM Group)

2026 wherein the results were declared on 15th June 2026. The

Petitioner thereafter participated in Centralized Admission Process

(“CAP”) for admission to the First Year Undergraduate Technical

Courses in Engineering and Technology/Integrated M.Tech for the

Academic Year 2026-27 under the Scheduled Tribe category, for

2/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

which the Petitioner was required to produce the Scheduled Tribe

Validity Certificate for securing admission under the Scheduled Tribe

category.

6. The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee passed the

impugned order dated 23rd July 2026 invalidating the Caste

Certificate of the Petitioner.

7. In view of the admission process being underway and the

Petitioner requiring to produce the Scheduled Tribe Validity

Certificate within the stipulated period, and the last date as per

Notification issued by State CET Cell for submission stated to be 5th

September 2026, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

8. Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, has submitted that inspite of the documentary evidence,

which had been produced by the Petitioner in support of his Tribe

claim, which includes the Caste Validity Certificates of the Petitioner's

father, brother, and direct blood relatives of the Petitioner from his

paternal side, the impugned order had been passed by the

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee invalidating his Caste claim.

3/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

9. Mr. Mendadkar has referred to the judgment passed by

this Court in Smt. Shilpa Jay Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1,

wherein this Court faced with a similar case as the present where the

Scrutiny Committee had not considered the Caste Validity Certificates

of the Petitioner's blood relatives from the paternal side, had set aside

the order of the Scrutiny Committee which had invalidated the caste

claim of the Petitioner and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue

Caste Validity Certificate in respect of Thakur Scheduled Tribe

community to the Petitioner within thirty days from the date of

uploading of the said order. This Court had also made it clear that if

any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioners have relied upon

for claiming validity, suffer invalidation in the reopened cases, the

Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to reopen the Petitioners’

cases as well, and the consequences suffered by those candidates

whose claims are invalidated (after reopening of the case), would

befall on the Petitioners as well. Mr. Mendadkar has accordingly

sought for a similar order to be passed.

10. Ms. Deshmukh, the learned AGP appearing for the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has opposed the present Petition by

1 Writ Petition No.18841 of 2024 dated 17th February 2026.

4/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

submitting that the Caste Validity Certificates, which the Petitioner

has relied upon had been issued by the Scrutiny Committee without

conducting Police Vigilance Cell inquiry. She has submitted that in

absence of such Police Vigilance Cell inquiry, the Petitioner cannot

place reliance upon the orders validating the caste claims of the

Petitioner's blood relatives.

11. The learned AGP has placed reliance upon the judgment

of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat

Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2., wherein the

Supreme Court has held that where the Scrutiny Committee is of the

view that the Applicant has not clearly established that the person to

whom the Caste Validity Certificate produced has been granted is his

blood relative in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Scheduled

Tribe Rules, the Scrutiny Committee will have to refer the case to

conduct an inquiry through Vigilance Cell. In such case, the Vigilance

Cell can be directed by the Scrutiny Committee to conduct an inquiry

limited to the relationship claimed by the Applicant with the person

in whose favor the Caste Validity Certificate has been issued.

2 (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415.

5/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

12. The learned AGP has submitted that the Caste

Certificate granted to the Petitioner's blood relatives are in respect of

documents which have been fabricated and in respect of which show

cause notices have been issued. These show cause notices have been

issued after the orders were passed by the Scrutiny Committee

validating the caste claim of the Petitioner's blood relatives. She

submitted that, in view of the show cause notices having been issued,

the impugned order of the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee

ought not to be set aside, particularly, considering that the impugned

order had invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner on the basis

that there was tampering of documents produced by the Petitioner in

respect of the Petitioner's blood relatives.

13. Having considered these submissions, a consistent view

has been taken by this Court, particularly where the Petitioner has

relied upon Caste Validity Certificates having been issued by the

Scrutiny Committee to the Petitioner's blood relatives from the

paternal side, to take such Caste Validity Certificates into

consideration and allow the Petitions by directing the Scrutiny

Committee to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner by

making it clear that if any of the validity holders on whom the

6/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

Petitioners before the Court have relied upon for claiming validity,

suffer invalidation in reopened cases, the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny

Committee would be at liberty to reopen the Petitioner's case as well.

Further, the consequences suffered by those candidates whose claims

are invalidated (after reopening of the case) would befall on the

Petitioners as well. This is in light of the contention made on behalf

of the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee that show cause

notices have been issued to the paternal blood relatives of the

Petitioner, to whom Caste Validity Certificates have been issued,

alleging fraud.

14. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) that where the

Scrutiny Committee has been satisfied that the person in whose

favour the Caste Validity Certificate has been issued is a blood

relative of the Applicant and lawful inquiry has been conducted

before issuing the Validity Certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will

have to issue the Validity Certificate.

15. Considering the documents on record, particularly those

documents which make it evident that Caste Validity Certificates have

7/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

been issued to the Petitioner’s blood relatives as belonging to Koli

Malhar Scheduled Tribe, these Caste Validity Certificates are required

to be taken into consideration. This is inspite of the Respondent No. 2

- Scrutiny Committee contending that there was no vigilance

conducted in respect of the Petitioner’s paternal blood relatives whilst

granting the Caste Validity Certificate to them. Now that a view has

been taken by the Scrutiny Committee that the Caste Validity

Certificates are required to be issued to the Petitioner’s blood

relatives without vigilance being conducted, this cannot be

questioned by the Scrutiny Committee, themselves, in these

proceedings.

16. Further, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. The State of

Maharashtra3, relied upon in Smt. Shilpa Jay Wagh (supra), wherein

this Court has held that merely issuing show cause notices alleging

fraud would not suffice where a Validity Certificate had been issued

by the Competent Scrutiny Committee to the blood relatives of the

Petitioner on the paternal side.

3 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363.

8/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

17. We, accordingly, pass a similar order as has been passed

by this Court in Smt. Shilpa Jay Wagh (supra).

18. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 23rd July 2026 passed by

the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee is quashed

and set aside.

iii. The Caste Validity Certificate in respect of Koli Malhar

Scheduled Tribe community shall be issued by the

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee to the

Petitioner, within a period of one week from the date

of this order.

iv. If any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioner

before this Court have relied upon for claiming

validity, suffer invalidation in the reopened cases, the

Respondent No. 2 - Committee would be at liberty to

9/10
WP-10712-2026-O.doc

reopen the Petitioner’s case as well, and the

consequences suffered by those candidates whose

claims are invalidated (after reopening of the case),

would befall on this Petitioner as well.

v. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

There shall be no order as to costs.

[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]

10/10

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…