NARESH CHINANNA SHANKRODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40209-DB


                                               1                wp 11894-2021+.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 11894 OF 2021
                 Rajesh s/o. Chinanna Shankrod
                 Age: 26 years, Occu: Nil,
                 R/o. Yeoti, Tq. Dharmabad,
                 Dist. Nanded                                      ….      Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through its Secretary,
                        Tribal Developments Department,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                 2.     The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
                        Verification Committee Aurangabad,
                        Through its Dy. Director (R),
                        Aurangabad.

                 3.     The Principal
                        Lal Bahadur Shastri College
                        Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad.                  ….      Respondents

                                             WITH
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 11907 OF 2021

                 Chinanna s/o. Papanna Shankrod
                 Age: 60 years, Occu: Pensioner,
                 R/o. Yeoti, Tq. Dharmabad,
                 Dist. Nanded                                      ….      Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through its Secretary,
                        Tribal Developments Department,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                               2              wp 11894-2021+.odt


2.    The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
      Verification Committee Aurangabad,
      Through its Dy. Director (R),
      Aurangabad.                                ….      Respondents

                            WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO. 11918 OF 2021

Naresh s/o. Chinanna Shankrod
Age: 22 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. Yeoti, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded                                     ….      Petitioner

                  VERSUS

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Tribal Developments Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.    The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
      Verification Committee Aurangabad,
      Through its Dy. Director (R),
      Aurangabad.

3.    The Principal
      Lal Bahadur Shastri College
      Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad.                  ….      Respondents


Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioners in all Petitions.
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Respondent No. 3 is served.

                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

Date on which reserved for order : 21st July, 2026.

Date on which order pronounced : 03rd September, 2026.
                               3             wp 11894-2021+.odt


FINAL ORDER (PER KISHORE C. SANT, J.) :-

1.    Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned

A.G.P for the respondents-State.


2.    None appeared for respondent No. 3 though served.

Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2 is

the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee and

respondent No. 3 is the Principal, Lal Bahadur Shastri College,

Dharmabad with whom the petitioners in W. P. No. 11894/2021

and W. P. No. 11918/2021 are taking education.


3.    By consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final

disposal at the stage of admission since the original file of the case

of the petitioners before the committee is received.


4.    Chinanna – petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11907/2021 is

father of petitioners Rajesh in Writ Petition No. 11894/2021 and

Naresh in Writ Petition No. 11918/2021.


5.    By way of these petitions all the petitioners have challenged

a common judgment and order passed by respondent No. 2

committee        dated      03.08.2021        in        case      Nos.

4/511/Edu/102020/171047,             Nan/SER/1364/2013            and
                              4             wp 11894-2021+.odt


4/511/Edu/102020/171044 alongwith two other persons. Since

all these petitioners are challenging common judgment and order

and they are from the same family all the petitions are taken up

together.


6.    The committee invalidated the respective certificates of the

petitioners holding that the petitioners failed to prove their caste

status as belonging to Scheduled Tribe ‘Mannervarlu’. Secondly, it

is held that the petitioners failed to prove the affinity with the

Scheduled Tribe. While considering the documentary evidence the

committee considered 95 documents in respect of applicants

before committee including petitioners before the committee. The

committee further considered the school record as per the report

submitted by the vigilance cell. It further examined the record of

other persons from the village having the same surname. It found

that the caste wherever is recorded in the cases of the petitioners

and the relatives, word Mannervarlu appears to have been

overwritten by adding word ‘Lu’ (yw) to word Mannerwar.


7.    So far as the affinity test is concerned, it is held that the

place where the petitioners reside is not a place of persons

belonging to Mannervarlu tribe. The surnames which are shown to
                               5               wp 11894-2021+.odt


be of the relatives of the petitioners are not found in Mannervarlu

tribe. The rituals and traditions followed in the marriage in the

petitioners family are as per the Hindu rites. The Gods and

Goddesses worshiped by the petitioners are not the Gods and

Goddesses    worshiped    by       persons   from    Scheduled      Tribe

Mannervarlu. The language does not match with the Scheduled

Tribe and the committee delivered the judgment. The petitioners

are thus before this Court.


8.    This Court while issuing notice had also called for the

original files in respect of the petitioners from the office of

committee. Accordingly, the files are produced before this Court.

While challenging the judgment the petitioners have raised

various grounds that the area restrictions are now removed. The

committee did not appreciate the documents properly. There is no

sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the alleged

overwriting in the school record. The affinity test is also wrongly

conducted. Thus, on all these grounds the judgment is challenged.



9.    The learned advocate Mr. Vibhute for the petitioners

vehemently argued that the petitioners have shown their

genealogy starting from one Chinanna who happened to be
                              6              wp 11894-2021+.odt


grandfather of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11907/2021 and

great grandfather of other two petitioners. Chinanna had three

children namely Papanna, Irabai and Bhudevi. Papanna had five

children namely Chinanna, Rajabai, Ramesh, Laxman and

Hanmalu. It is clearly shown from the genealogy that the

petitioners happened to be persons belonging to Mannervarlu

tribe. After conducting the vigilance inquiry, a report was

submitted. The petitioners have replied to the vigilance cells’

report. The said is not properly considered. There are no contra

entries as such. There is nothing to show that the petitioners have

done any overwriting in the school entries in respect of the record

of the relatives. There is validity granted to the real sister Sharda

of Naresh and Rajesh in the year 2011 by the same committee

after considering the vigilance cell’s report and the affinity test.

Merely because in the case of Hanmalu Papanna Shankrod,

brother of petitioner – Chinanna, he failed to prove his Schedule

Tribe, on that ground the cases of the petitioners are reopened in

absence of power to review. The case of Chinanna is reopened

only in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 8488/2017 in

the case of Rahul Sambhaji Admulwad Vs. State of Maharashtra

And Others. The said case was reopened in view of Writ Petition
                                         7    wp 11894-2021+.odt


No. 8488/2017 (supra). Chinanna’s case could not have been

reopened. He submits that since 1987 onwards all the entries in

the school record are shown to be Mannervarlu, still those are

discarded merely expressing doubt about the overwriting in the

entries. The validity claims are rejected as far the affinity and area

restrictions. He submits that the committee’s findings and

observations are totally incorrect.


10.     He relied upon the following judgments :

             (i) Bankam s/o Balaji Maldode Vs. The State of
             Maharashtra And Others1.

             (ii) Sahebrao s/o Sayanna Poradwar Vs. The State
             of Maharashtra And Another2.

             (iii) Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan Vs. The
             Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
             Committee, Amravati with another connected
             petition3.

             (iv) Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra And
             Others4.

11.     The learned advocate submits that merely because the

entries appear to be overwritten, unless it is shown that it is the

petitioner who has done the overwriting, such entries cannot be

1   W. P. No. 9047/2020 (Aurangabad Bench).
2   W. P. No. 1624/2025 (Aurangabad Bench).
3   W. P. No. 3269/2021 (Nagpur Bench).
4   2009 AIR SCW 6173.
                                  8         wp 11894-2021+.odt


used against the petitioners. He thus submits that the petitions

deserve to be allowed.


12.   Learned A.G.P. Mr. Shinde for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also

vehemently opposes the petitions. He submits that the learned

members of the committee have rightly applied their mind to the

cases of each of the petitioners. The record that was produced

before the committee clearly shows that in the school record there

is overwriting. There is no pre-independence record submitted

before the committee. The petitioners are coming from village

Yeoti, Taluka Dharmabad, District Nanded where no persons from

Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe are found. In the case of Hanmalu

Papanna Shankrod it was found that the validities granted earlier

which Hanmalu relied upon were found to have been obtained

fraudulently. In that view the case of petitioner -Chinanna was

reopened. The committee has granted sufficient opportunity to the

petitioners, however in spite of sufficient opportunity the

petitioners failed to prove their cases and to show that the

vigilance cell’s report or the school record was genuine. He also

invited attention of this Court to the original files. He thus prays

for dismissal of the petitions.
                                  9           wp 11894-2021+.odt


13. This Court has heard the parties. On the basis of submissions

the questions that are coming up for the consideration are i) as to

whether the committee has rightly decided the claims of the

petitioners. ii) whether the observations and findings in respect

of school entries are correctly recorded. iii) whether the

committee is right in coming to conclusion that since persons

belonging to Mannervarlu tribe are not found in the village and

Taluka of the petitioners that by itself is sufficient to negate to

tribe claim of the petitioners.


14. While considering the judgment of the committee the

committee has mainly considered the tribe certificate, school

leaving certificate, caste certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the

village, caste certificate issued by the Police Patil, caste certificate

issued by Talathi and first page of service record of Chinanna etc.

In the case of Naresh it considered the caste certificate, bonafide

certificate, his affidavit, genealogy, affidavit of his sister Sharda

and school leaving certificate. So far as case of Rajesh it

considered caste certificate, bonafide certificate, his affidavit,

affidavit of his sister namely Sharda, school leaving certificate

etc. The committee also considered the school record produced
                              10             wp 11894-2021+.odt


by the vigilance cell from the school of father and relatives. In the

school record of Papanna Chinnu i.e. grandfather of Rajesh and

Naresh entry taken is of the year 1951. Shankrod Chinanna

Pappanna’s entry taken is of 1968. One Hanmalu Papanna

Shankrod from Zilla Parishad School showing entry of the year

1982 and the inquiry made with villagers. So far as Hanmalu’s

record is concerned, it is found that the record available is of the

period after 1951 onwards though the school is established in the

year 1929. From the Zilla Parishad school Kundalwadi, the

entries from the year 1951 to 1962 are found to be in the same

handwriting with the same pen. The signature is of the same

headmaster. Whereas other record from the same school shown

that the signatures of the Headmaster on the T.C. certificate on

26.09.1953 and 30.06.1954 are different. Some of the pages

from the register are found to have been missing. The vigilance

cell clearly submitted the report showing that the customs and

traditions of the petitioners’ family do not match with the

customs and traditions of the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe.

Various opportunities were given to the petitioners to submit

say/reply to the vigilance cell’s report and it is only thereafter on

receipt of the reply the file was closed.
                             11                 wp 11894-2021+.odt


15. The    committee    found     that   the    entries     as       showing

Mannervarlu are of the years 1989 till 2018 and therefore cannot

be considered. The entry in respect of Chinanna Papanna

Shankrod in the school record is shown to be Munnurwar in Zilla

Parishad Primary School at Yeoti. In the case of Laxman Papanna

Shankrod i.e. brother of Chinanna Papanna Shankrod, entry is

shown to be Munurwad. These entries are taken from T.C. book.

So far as entries in the name of other relatives are concerned

those showing their tribe to be Manervarlu are the entries during

the period from 1968 to 1976 which appear to have been

manipulated.    There   is   overwriting       as   Mannervarlu         and

Manerwarlu. The committee thus considered that Munnurwar or

Munnurwad are different from Mannervarlu by relying upon the

judgment in the case of Chandrakant Tulshiram Padalwar Vs.

State of Maharashtra And Others.


16. In the case of Laxman i.e. applicant No.1 before the

committee, who is not before this Court presently, had produced

school leaving certificate on 18.06.1986 issued by Zilla Parishad

School, Yeoti showing tribe as Mannervarlu. In a visit by vigilance

cell it was found that while taking admission to the school on
                              12              wp 11894-2021+.odt


15.07.1976, the caste was mentioned as Munurwad, however

while obtaining T.C. it is shown as Mannervarlu. For that

purpose, it was found that the school record was fabricated. So

far as caste certificates issued by the Sarpanch, Police Patil,

Talathi it is rightly considered that these are not the authorities to

issue certificates mentioning the caste. In the revenue record also

no caste is mentioned. A copy of one document of the year 1951

i.e. mortgage deed was produced before the committee, however

original was not produced and therefore the said could not be

verified though in the copy the name of the caste appears to be

Mannerwarlu. The committee rightly considered that there was

change in the caste column of applicant No.1 showing the change

made in the caste column, however, that was of 2017 and it was

done without following process of law as per Rule 26.4 of the

Secondary Schools Code and therefore the same is not rightly

considered. The committee considered the fact that in the case of

Hanmalu the claim is negatived by order dated 14.09.2006.


17. So far as validity in the case of Sharda is concerned, it was

observed that in the case of Papanna Chinnu Shankrod i.e. father

of Chinanna it is shown that he took admission in the year 1951
                            13             wp 11894-2021+.odt


in the school at Kundalwadi, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. The

said entry was found to be bogus. Her caste validity certificate

was granted when one Shri. V. S. Patil was Chairman of the

committee. It was found that in the said committee many

validities were granted without proper verification. Even special

investigation team was constituted to make inquiry in respect of

the said committee and therefore the case of Sharda was not

considered.


18. The committee considered the judgment in the case of Jyoti

Sheshrao Mupade Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Others in

Writ Petition No.1954/2009. The committee also considered the

case of Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra And

Others in Writ Petition No. 5160/2012 (Aurangabad Bench) . The

said judgment was delivered considering the Hon’ble Apex

Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5778/2015 holding that if

the certificate is obtained by fraud, such cases can be reopened.

Thus, all these are considered by the committee.


19. This Court has gone through the original file, the

photocopies of the school record from Zilla Parishad School

Kundalwadi, Taluka Biloli. In the case of Papanna Chinnu
                              14           wp 11894-2021+.odt


Shankrod which was relied upon by the petitioners, it is seen that

word ‘Lu’ (yw) is added subsequently. This entry of Papanna

Chinnu Shankrod is dated 10.02.1942. So far as entries in the

name of Chinanna Papanna Shankrod, Laxman Papanna

Shankrod and Hanmalu Papanna Shankrod the Headmaster has

certified that in the school record the word Mannervarlu in the

caste column is overwritten by adding word ‘Lu’(yw). The school

leaving certificate of Laxman Papanna Shankrod issued on

16.06.1980 shows the caste as Munurwad. The copy of leaving

certificate is certified by the Headmaster, Primary School, Zilla

Parishad, Yeoti. Thus, the findings of the committee is based on

original record of the school and certificate issued by the

Headmaster of the school. The colour copies of the record are

signed as true copies by the Headmaster of the school and there

is no difficulty in accepting the same.


20. This Court has also seen the file of Hanmalu which was

produced by the learned AGP. From the file of Hanmalu it is seen

that the entry in the name of Chinanna Papanna Shankrod

appears at serial No. 207. Though the entry shown caste as

Mannervarlu the Headmaster has certified that the said column is
                            15             wp 11894-2021+.odt


fabricated by adding word Mannervarlu by erasing word

Mannerwar. In the case of Ramrao Gangaram Shankrod the caste

is clearly mentioned as Manurwar at entry serial No. 160. In the

case of Laxman Papanna Shankrod, brother of petitioner

Chinanna also the caste is shown as Munurwad at entry serial

No. 460.


21. So far as the judgment in the case of Bankam s/o Balaji

Maldode (supra), this Court had directed to issue certificate as

belonging to Mannervarlu, however, that is subject to outcome of

the reopened validities. The observation therefore would not help

the petitioners.


22. In the case of Sahebrao s/o Sayanna Poradwar (supra), the

committee was directed to issue certificate as belonging to

Mannervarlu, but again it was subject to outcome of the

reopened cases.


23. So far as case of Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan (supra) is

concerned, in that case, the cases were reopened holding that a

different view on the same facts was possible. This Court held

that merely because another view is possible is no ground to
                            16             wp 11894-2021+.odt


reopen the cases. However, in the said judgment it is also

observed that the committee cannot reopen the case unless the

committee is of the view that earlier certificate is obtained by

fraud. In the present case, the case of Chinanna Papanna

Shankrod is only reopened case whereas, case of Rajesh and

Naresh are proposals forwarded by respondent No. 3.


24. In the case of Sayanna (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court

considered that merely because overwriting is there in the caste

column, unless it is shown that such overwriting is done by the

claimant himself it cannot be used against the claimant in the

facts of that case. In the said case it is also observed that the

document was forged one. It was considered that the Police

Inspector did not indicate whether he had recorded the statement

of the President of the Municipality as to whether certificate in

that case was genuine or not. There was no report by the Police

Inspector stating that the word ‘Lu’ (yw) was interpolated by the

appellant. Addition of word ‘Lu’ (yw) itself would not lead to an

irresistible conclusion that the said word was added by the

appellant or at his behest. Mainly what was considered was that

it was not clear as to on what basis the scrutiny committee came
                               17               wp 11894-2021+.odt


to the conclusion that the word ‘Lu’ (yw) was interpolated. The

enquiry officer had not obtained any expert’s opinion to arrive at

such conclusion as to interpolation. Even the committee did not

obtain any expert’s opinion to conclude the same. The said

judgment is already considered by this Court in the case of

Shubham Sharad Mahandule Vs. The State of Maharashtra And

Others in Writ Petition No. 4704/2023 with another connected

petition and distinguished the same on facts.


25. One more reason as to why this Court cannot rely upon the

entry where word ‘Lu’ (yw) is added is section 8 of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified

Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 requires the claimant

to prove his caste claim. Section 8 reads as under :-


        “8. Burden of proof - Where an application is made to
         the Competent Authority under section 3 for the issue
         of a Caste Certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes,
         Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
         Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
         Backward Category and in any enquiry conducted by
         the Competent Authority and Scrutiny Committee or
         the Appellate Authority under this Act or any trial of
         offence under this Act, the burden of proving that the
         person belonged to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be
                               18           wp 11894-2021+.odt

        on such claimant applicant.”



26. It is thus seen that though in the case of Sayanna (supra), it

was in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further

observed that there was no material to support overwriting etc.

There it was only an opinion of the vigilance committee

mentioning that there is overwriting with different ink and

different handwriting. It is not a question who has done the

overwriting. It is for the person who relies upon the entries to

show that those entries are genuine and are not fabricated even if

some wrong is done by other person. The person who relies upon

such entries cannot take benefits merely by showing that he has

not fabricated the entries. Ultimately, burden cannot be put on

the committee to prove that the entries are fabricated,

overwritten etc. by the claimant as the same is not accepted.



27. In the present case Headmaster has certified that in the

school entries of Chinanna, Laxman, and Hanmalu word

Mannervarlu is either overwritten and fabricated. In some cases

word ‘Lu’ (yw) is added in different ink and different handwriting.

The committee has considered all this material and has come to

conclusion. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with
                               19             wp 11894-2021+.odt


 the said findings as these entries are relied by the petitioners in

 support of their claim.



28. Considering above, this Court finds that the petitioners have

 failed to make out a case calling for interference at the hands of

 this Court. The writ petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.



( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                 ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )




P.S.B.