Bombay High Court
WP/10905/2004 of KU. PUSHPASHILA PUNJABRAO BHUYAR Vs
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's caste claim is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to a validity certificate as a member of the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
Summary
The petitioner, Ku. Pushpashila, challenged a 2004 order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee that invalidated her claim to belong to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. She relied on a 2023 High Court decision (Writ Petition No.929 of 2018) which held that validity certificates of close blood relatives and the totality of documentary evidence could establish tribe status, and that a vigilance report could not be the sole basis for rejection. The State argued that a review petition had been filed by a relative who had withdrawn his claim, and that the earlier decision could be revisited. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that affinity requirements must be examined in the context of all evidence, and that the earlier High Court judgment remained binding unless successfully reviewed. Consequently, the Court set aside the 2004 order and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within six weeks, while leaving the matter open to any future review by the State.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the petitioner's caste claim without considering the validity certificates of her blood relatives.
- Whether the vigilance cell report can be treated as conclusive evidence against the petitioner's tribe status.
- Whether the Supreme Court's decision on affinity requirements applies to the present case.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a validity certificate as a member of the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- scheduled tribe
- validity certificate
- affinity
- scrutiny committee
- review petition
- blood relatives
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
Judgment
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10905 OF 2004
Ku. Pushpashila D/o Punjabrao Bhuyar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Roshan Suryawansi a/w K. K. Khamare, for the Petitioner.
Ms. V. R. Raje, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 7 th February, 2004
passed by the Respondent No.2-Chairman & The Dy. Director,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Giripeth Nagpur (M.S.)
invalidating her Caste claim belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this
Court, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.929 of 2018 dated 18 th
December, 2023. The said decision reads thus:
Manisha 1/7
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.11
20:07:24 +0530
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
“ Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
6.1.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 invalidating the
caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur"
(Scheduled Tribe). The Scrutiny Committee has not
considered the validity certificates issued to the blood
relatives of the petitioner while invalidating his caste
claim.
3. The petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe)
which is enlisted at serial No.18 of the The Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The petitioner was
appointed in Zilla Parishad, Washim as an Assistant
Teacher on 11.10.1993. His caste claim was referred to
respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee by Zilla Parishad on
5.5.2015.
4. The petitioner has submitted the documents of his
father Panjabrao Bhuyar dated 10.7.1947 in support of his
caste claim of "Thakur", the school leaving certificate of
Panjabrao dated 18.6.1942, dakhal kharij register of father
of petitioner dated 18.6.1942, the entry of grand-father of
the petitioner in death certificate of his son dated
27.9.1929, the birth entry of the daughter born to
Narayan dated 21.10.1929, document showing son born
to Narayan dated 9.11.1933, the caste of great grand-
father Ambadas is also recorded as "Thakur" in the entry
dated 1.3.1915 showing son born to him. All these
documents produced by the petitioner are of Thakur entry.
5. The Vigilance Cell obtained birth extract of one
Ambadas, who is stated to be the great grandfather of the
petitioner. The caste of Ambadas is recorded as Bhat and
birth date is recorded as 24.3.1924. The petitioner had
relied upon the birth extracts to show that a son was born
to Ambadas on 01.03.2015 and that his great
grandchildren i.e. daughter and son of Narayan were born
Manisha 2/7
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
in the year 1929 and 1933. These documents reveals that
the extract referred to in the vigilance report is not that of
the great grandfather of the petitioner. Without
considering his explanation and only relying on the
document of Ambadas where the entry is shown as Bhat
the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim.
Another ground raised is of not matching affinity.
6. During the pendency of this petition the blood
relatives of the petitioner received the validity certificates
and by filing additional affidavit, the petitioner has
brought on record that his five relatives have received the
validity certificates. It is prayed that considering the ratio
laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and
others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 the petitioner be
issued the validity certificate.
7. The respondent No.1, has filed reply, stating that the
oldest entry shows the caste of great grandfather of the
petitioner as Bhat. The validity certificate of relatives
relied on are issued after filing of this petition hence
cannot be considered. Hence, respondent No.1 has prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
8. In view of the additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner stating that five blood relatives have received
the validity certificates of "Thakur" and as per the ratio
laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) the petitioner
is entitled for issuance of validity certificate of "Thakur"
(Scheduled Tribe). The persons whose validity certificates
are produced before us by the petitioner are mentioned in
the family tree, therefore, it is proved that the petitioner
belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). The documents
which are filed on record also prove that the petitioner
belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe).
9. Insofar as the aspect of affinity is concerned, this
issue has now been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Manisha 3/7
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
in its decision in Maharashtra. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785. It has been held therein
that report of the Vigilance Cell cannot be treated as a
litmus test. The entire material on record has to be
considered while verifying the tribe claim of a candidate.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order
passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The
Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate of
"Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) to the petitioner within a
period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be
no orders as to costs.”
4. In all fairness to the learned A.G.P., we must say that the
learned A.G.P vehemently opposed the Petition. Learned A.G.P.
submitted that, in respect of Caste Validity Certificates issued to some
of the blood relatives of the Petitioner, a Review Petition was filed by
the Respondents before this Court, Bench at Nagpur. In the Review
Petition, one of the Petitioner-Santosh Bhaurao Bhuyar, son of Mr.
Bhaurao Bhuyar gave up the Caste claim by stating that neither the
Petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the
‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe in future, and that the limited protection
which Santosh Bhaurao Bhuyar sought was for reinstatement in
service, which was granted by this Court, Bench at Nagpur. It is
pertinent to note that the decision in Santosh s/o Bhaurao Bhuyar
Manisha 4/7
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 was made on 15th December,
2015.
5. We are not impressed by the submissions of learned A.G.P. that
in view of the decision in Santosh’s case, this Petition be dismissed,
for the reason that decision in respect of Petitioner’s real brother viz.
Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar in Writ Petition No.929 of 2018
reproduced above is dated 18th December, 2023. The Order dated
18th December, 2023 in respect of the real brother of the Petitioner is
in force and it is obviously open for the Respondents to file a Review
Petition against the Order dated 18th December, 2023 if the
contention is that such a decision suffers from a error apparent on
the face of record. So long as the Order dated 18 th December, 2023 is
subsisting, the Petitioner being a close blood relative of Mr. Atul
Panjabrao Bhuyar, who is his real sister, is also entitled to have Caste
claim validated. It is submitted that the Petitioner is the real sister of
Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar who has filed the Writ Petition No.929 of
2018. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and Ors.2, the Petitioner being a close blood relative
1 Writ Petition No.1740 of 2009, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur
2 (2010) SSC Online Bom 1053
Manisha 5/7
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
of Mr. Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar, is also entitled to have her Caste claim
validated as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. For the
aforesaid reasons, the present Petition deserves to be allowed.
6. It is however, made clear that in the event, a Review Petition is
filed by the Respondents against the Order dated 18 th December,
2023 in Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Certificate
Scrutiny Committee and Anr.3 and any orders passed thereon, the
issuance of the Validity Certificate in Petitioner’s favour would be
subject to the outcome of the decision in the Review Petition. Hence,
the following Order:
ORDER
(i) Keeping the liberty open, Writ Petition No.10905 of 2004
is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 7th February, 2004 passed by
the Respondent No.2-Chairman & The Dy. Director, Scheduled
Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Giripeth Nagpur (M.S.) is set
aside.
3 Writ Petition No.929 of 2018, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur
Manisha 6/7
8-WP-10905-2004.doc
(iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Certificate of
Validity to Petitioner-Ku. Pushpashila as belonging to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe within a period of six weeks from today.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
(vi) In view of above, Writ Petition No.10905 of 2004 stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha 7/7
Checking your session…