VINA EKNATH SAINDANE @ VIJAYA PRAMOD THAKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT, MANTRALAYA,

                                                        WP-11346-2011.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                WRIT PETITION NO. 11346 OF 2011
Vina Eknath Saindane                           ]
@ Vijaya Pramod Thakur,                        ]
aged 43 Years, residing at 11, Shivsagar Aptt. ]
Pathare Park, Ambarnath (East), District-Thane ].....Petitioner
             Versus
1.   State of Maharashtra                           ]
through its Secretary, Tribal Development           ]
Department, Mantralaya,                             ]
Mumbai-400 032.                                     ]
                                                    ]
2.    Scheduled      Tribe     Certificate Scrutiny ]
Committee, Nandurbar Region,                        ]
Nandurbar through its Member                        ]
Secretary having its office at                      ]
Nandurbar, District Nandurbar.                      ]
                                                    ]
3.    Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika                  ]
through its Chief Accountant (W & S Deptt.)         ]
                  rd
Room No.300, 3 Floor,                               ]
Mahanagarpalika Marg, Boribandar,                   ]
Mumbai:400 001.                                     ]
                                                    ]
4.    Executive Magistrate, Amalner,                ]
District : Jalgaon.                                 ]
                                                    ]
5.    Mumbai Housing and Area Development ]
Board, the Regional Unit of Maharashtra Housing ]
and Area Development Authority                      ]
Having its office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala ]
Nagar, Bandra (E)                                   ]
Mumbai : 400 051.                                   ].....Respondents
                                   .....
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Ms. Priyanka Shaw, for the Petitioner.
Smt. V. R. Raje, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.
                                    ..…

Manisha                                                            1/10
             Digitally signed by
MANISHA      MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.09.24
             18:14:34 +0530
                                                                WP-11346-2011.doc



                             CORAM                : M. S. KARNIK &
                                                    SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
                             RESERVED ON          : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026
                             PRONOUNCED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT [PER : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.]

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

the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.

2.        By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging, the

judgment and order dated 7th June 2011 passed by the Respondent

No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar

Region, with further direction, to the Committee, to issue the Caste

Validity      Certificate.    The    Respondent    No.3-Chief    Accountant,

Brihanmumbai, Mahanagarpalika on 23rd December, 2005 referred

the case of Petitioner to Respondent No.2 for verification of tribe

claim towards her tribe- ‘Thakur, Scheduled Tribe’ for service purpose

through Chief Accountant, Brihanmumbai, Mahanagarparika. The

Petitioner had obtained Caste Certificate from the Executive

Magistrate, Amalner on 22nd April, 1983. The Caste Certificate was

referred to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Nandurbar Region for verification and the same was rejected. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat

Manisha                                                                    2/10
                                                        WP-11346-2011.doc


Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1, had

remanded the matter back to this Court vide Order dated 12 th

December, 2025 for the purpose of deciding the same in light of

Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samita (supra). This

is how the matter is placed before us.


3.        The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted

that the Petitioner had placed on record, various preconstitutional

documents. He submitted that one such document is the birth date

extract of the father of Petitioner issued by the Birth and Death

Register Municipality Chopde, in the year 1939 where the name of

the Grandfather of the Petitioner was recorded as belonging to

‘Thakur’. That document is at ‘Exhibit-B’ to this petition. He relied

upon the document which is a School Leaving Certificate which

mentions that the student Eknath Namdev Saindane (who is the

father of the Petitioner) belongs to Hindu Thakur Caste, was born on

5th March 1939 and he left the school on 10 th March, 1949. He relied

upon the document that is the service book of the Petitioner’s father

wherein the Caste is recorded as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The

learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the only reason on

1    (2023) 16 SCC 415

Manisha                                                            3/10
                                                         WP-11346-2011.doc


which the caste claim of the Petitioner was invalidated was that the

Petitioner could not pass the affinity test. He submitted that this is

contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) .

He submitted that the pre-constitutional document was not

considered and therefore the present Petition be allowed and the

impugned Order be quashed and set aside.


4.        The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State

submitted that the Petitioner though relied upon several documents

in support of the case, the case of the Petitioner could not stand the

affinity test which was conducted. Learned Counsel for the

Respondent-State pointed out that notwithstanding the documents,

the Petitioner did not did not satisfy the affinity test. The test of

socio-cultural affinity being sine qua non in light of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of state of State of

Maharashtra Vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar2, the impugned Judgment and

Order was correctly passed.

5.        We have heard the learned Cousnel appearing for the parties.

We have also perused the documents relied upon by both the parties.

2 (2007) 1 SCC 80

Manisha                                                             4/10
                                                            WP-11346-2011.doc


6.        The Petitioner has produced on record, the Birth Certificate of

her father, where the name of her grandfather is mentioned as

Namdev Nathu and his caste is mentioned as Thakur. This document

was issued in the year 1939. There is yet another document, namely,

the School Leaving Certificate of the father of the Petitioner, namely,

Eknath Namdev Saindane wherein his birth date is mentioned as 5 th

March, 1939 and his caste is mentioned as Hindu Thakur. The date of

joining of the School is mentioned as 10 th March, 1949. These two

documents are of paramount importance. These documents are of

pre-constitutional period. It is pertinent to note that the presidential

order wherein the the tribe Thakur was inserted as Scheduled Tribe

was notified for the first time on 6 th September, 1950. Before that

date, there was no occasion, of there being a mention of Thakur as

Scheduled Tribe. These two documents undisputedly show that the

Petitioner belongs to Thakur. These two documents were the most

important documents which were relevant for the purpose of

deciding the subject matter in hand. As opposed to these documents,

without giving any importance to these two documents, the

Respondents have considered the affinity test as the litmus test. The

Respondents have come to a conclusion that the Petitioner could not


Manisha                                                                5/10
                                                        WP-11346-2011.doc


withstand the affinity test, and this ground only, the caste claim of

the Petitioner was rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

7.        We have perused the impugned Order. Paragraph no.1 of the

impugned Order which is answer to Issue No.1 clearly mentions that

the document, more particularly at Serial No.9 (which was the

document of birth extract of the father of the Petitioner), the

document at Sr. No.14 (which was the School Leaving Certificate of

the father of the Petitioner) were before the Caste Scrutiny

Committee. The said document in spite of the fact are referred and

relied by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, the Committee

mentions that there are no document which describe Petitioner or

her relatives as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny

Committee relying upon the judgment in a matter of Madhuri Patil

Vs. Commr, Tribal Developmentl3, held that without the test of socio-

cultural affinity, these documents are not of any importance. Thus

the Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed a serious error. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur

Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) has observed as under:




3 (1994) 6 SCC 241

Manisha                                                            6/10
                                                         WP-11346-2011.doc


      “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 [Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development,
      (1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349] . 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 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 [Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v.
      State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 705 : (2009)
      3 Mah LJ 995] ), 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

Manisha                                                             7/10
                                                           WP-11346-2011.doc


       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.

       28. ….the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test.
       We may again note here that question of conduct of the
       affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny
       Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by
       the applicant.”


8.        On perusal of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

it is clear that the documents which are of paramount importance for

the purpose of deciding the caste claim of the Petitioner are totally

ignored by the by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We have perused

the said documents. Those documents are not discarded by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee on the ground that they were not genuine or on

the ground that those do not belong to the father or grandfather of

the Petitioner, these documents are admittedly belonging to the

Petitioner and that there is no dispute about the genuineness of the

said document.

9.        The Division Bench of this Court, Bench at Aurangabad in the

judgment passed in the matter of Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 4, has after relying upon the
4 Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 dt. 25th February, 2026

Manisha                                                               8/10
                                                        WP-11346-2011.doc


judgment of Lahu Dashrath Thakur Vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region Nandurbar and Ors. decided

on 11th March, 2025 in Writ Petition No.9283 of 2012 and also

relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and

Ors. in Writ Petition No.11241 of 2012 has taken a view that there

can be no such entries made in the year 1947-1948 indicating the

word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.


10.       The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 which was

issued by a notification dated 6th September 1950, for the first time

included the caste ‘Thakur’ in Entry 21 of the Tribal Community.

There was, therefore, no occasion that the word ‘Thakur’ in ‘Thakur

Schedule Tribe’ could be mentioned in the pre-constitutional

document. In this premise, it is highly impossible that there would be

mention of the word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ in any pre-

constitutional documents. The Court has also taken a view that

unless until there is some document to show that the petitioner

belongs to the upper caste, it would not be proper to reject the case

of the petitioner because the word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ is not

mentioned in the entry of caste. In absence of any material to show

Manisha                                                            9/10
                                                              WP-11346-2011.doc


that the petitioner belongs to the upper caste ‘Thakur’, it would not

be proper to reject the caste claim of the petitioner.


11.       We are of the confirmed opinion that the Petition deserves to

be allowed. Hence, the following Order:

                                  ORDER

          (i)    Writ Petition No.11346 of 2011 is allowed.

          (ii)   The impugned Order dated 7th June, 2011 passed by the

          Respondent      No.2-Scheduled     Tribe   Certificate    Scrutiny

          Committee, Nandurbar Region is quashed and set aside.

          (iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Certificate of

          Validity to Petitioner-Vina Eknath Saindane @ Vijaya Pramod

          Thakur as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe within a period

          of eight weeks from today.

12.       Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

13.       There shall be no order as to costs.

14.       In view of above, Writ Petition No.11346 of 2011 stands

disposed of.




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



Manisha                                                                 10/10