Bombay High Court

MAHESH MAHADEV TURBATMATHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee correctly invalidated the petitioner’s claim to belong to the "Beda Jangam" Scheduled Caste and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Mahesh Mahadev Turbathmath, claimed belonging to the "Beda Jangam" Scheduled Caste and sought validation of his caste certificate for a municipal election. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee examined his extensive documentary evidence, including pre‑Constitution school records, caste certificates of relatives, and affidavits, and referred the matter to a vigilance inquiry. The Committee, relying on handwriting expert reports that indicated possible interpolation and on the fact that the oldest entries read "Hindu‑Lingayat Beda Jangam" rather than the exact name in the Presidential Order, invalidated the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner argued that the Committee ignored valid certificates of blood relatives and pre‑1947 documents, while the respondents contended that the Committee acted within its statutory powers and that the burden of proof under Section 8 of the 2000 Act was not met. The High Court examined precedent on the weight of pre‑Constitution documents, the necessity of exact nomenclature in the Schedule, and the limited power of the Committee to recall orders. It concluded that the Committee’s findings were based on admissible evidence and that no error was apparent. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the 2000 Act has the power to recall its order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts.
Whether caste validity certificates issued to blood relatives can be relied upon to establish the petitioner’s own Scheduled Caste status.
Whether pre‑Constitution era documents showing "Hindu‑Lingayat Beda Jangam" satisfy the requirement of the exact caste name as listed in the Presidential Order of 1950.
Whether the evidence of interpolation and the handwriting expert’s opinion are sufficient to invalidate the petitioner’s caste claim.
Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Scheduled Caste verification
Caste certificate validity
Scrutiny Committee power
Reservation law
Handwriting expert evidence
Interpolation of records
Burden of proof under Section 8
Recall of administrative order

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:5084-DB

WP-2627-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2627 OF 2026

Mahesh Mahadev Turbathmath
Aged 50 years, resident of Gadhinglaj
Dist. Kolhapur. ...Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Social
Justice Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
2. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny,
Committee, Kolhapur District,
Kolhapur through its Member
Secretary, having its office at
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik,
Nyay Bhavan, 2nd floor, Vichare Mal,
Kolhaspure – 416003.
Dist. Kolhapur.

3. Collector, Kolhapur,
Dist. Kolhapur.
4. Vinod Raju Bilawar,
Aged 43 years, resident of
Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur. ...Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
Appearance :
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar (Through V.C) a/w Mr. Shrishail Sakhare and Mr. Ashish A.
Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 - State
Mr. S. B. Talekar a/w Mr. Abhijit Adgule and Mr. Saurabh Veer, Advocate for
Respondent No.4
__________________________________________________________________

Sameer 1 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Reserved on : August 27, 2026.
Pronounced on : September 7, 2026.

JUDGMENT : [PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]

1. Impugned in this Writ Petition is the order dated 09.06.2026,

passed by Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the claim

of the Petitioner towards “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste.

2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the “Beda Jangam”

caste, which the Scheduled Caste at Serial No.9 of Part X of the

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Presidential Order of 1950’) in the Schedule to the Constitution of

India. The Petitioner is having a caste certificate as belonging to the

“Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. As the Petitioner intended to contest

the election to the post of President of the Gadhinglaj Municipal

Council, he submitted his caste certificate for verification to

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee. In support of his claim, he

submitted several documents of himself, of his father, of his

grandfather, of his great grandfather and other blood relatives. The

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee referred the case for Vigilance

Inquiry. The Vigilance Inquiry conducted the necessary inquiry, during

which it recorded the statements of villagers, including that of

Respondent No.4. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report, a copy of

Sameer 2 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

which was given to the Petitioner by Respondent No.2 – Committee. The

Petitioner submitted his Say to the Vigilance Cell report. A complaint

came to be lodged with Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee by

Respondent No.4 that, the Petitioner did not belong to the “Beda

Jangam” Scheduled Caste. The Respondent No.4 stated that, the

Petitioner did not belong to the “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste.

Considering the documents on record and the Vigilance Cell report,

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Petitioner’s

claim towards “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste by the impugned order.

3. Heard finally at the admission stage by consent of both the sides.

[A] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that,

the Petitioner had submitted the documents, in support of his caste

claim, which shows that, he belong to the “Beda Jangam” Scheduled

Caste. The Scrutiny Committee at Pune had issued the caste validity

certificates to the cousin brother and cousin nephew of the Petitioner

as belonging to the “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. The Respondent

No.2 - Scrutiny Committee ignored the said important documents. The

Vigilance Cell collected the documents from the school where the

Petitioner’s father had taken education and suspecting interpolation in

the caste column, referred the document from the school for the

opinion of handwriting expert, which do not give a conclusive finding

Sameer 3 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

that, there was interpolation in the school record of the Petitioner’s

father. The Committee on its own, referred the documents to the

handwriting experts and thereafter sits on the opinion of handwriting

experts, which do not give any conclusive opinion that, the document

was forged. As on date, no show-cause notice was issued by the Pune

Scrutiny Committee to the blood relatives of the Petitioner holding

validity certificates. The Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee had

returned the matter to the Pune Scrutiny Committee, recalling the

papers of the validity holders from the family of the Petitioners. The

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee ignored the pre-Constitution

era entry in respect of the Petitioner’s uncle showing the caste as “Beda

Jangam”. The various affidavits submitted by the Petitioner before

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee, which supports his claim

towards “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste, went unchallenged. As the

impugned order did not consider the documents having more probative

value and invalidated the Petitioner’s caste claim on untenable reasons,

the same be set aside, and Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee be

directed to issue the caste validity certificate to the Petitioner as

belonging to the “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. In support of his

submissions, he relied on the decisions in Abhishek Mahendra Umbarje

Vs. State of Maharashtra, and others; 2022 SCC Online Bom 2858 and

Sayanna vs State of Maharashtra & Others; (2009) 10 SCC 268.

Sameer 4 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

[B] It is submitted by the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3

that, the Scrutiny Committee considered the documents available on

record, and since there was no document from the pre-Constitution era

showing the caste of the Petitioner’s forefathers as “Beda Jangam”, no

fault can be found with the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2

– Scrutiny Committee. The document of the Petitioner’s father, showing

interpolation, was rightly referred for the opinion of handwriting

experts. The opinion of handwriting experts supports the Committee’s

opinion. There was an afterthought insertion in the old records. The

caste validity certificate of the blood relatives of the Petitioner are

rightly not accepted by Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee for the

reasons mentioned in the impugned order. There is no merit in the

Petition, and the same be dismissed.

[C] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 that,

the pre-Constitution era documents of the Petitioner and his

forefathers show the entry as “Hindu-Lingayat Beda Jangam”, which

cannot be considered as the entry as per the Constitution Schedule. The

Vigilance Cell found that, the word “Beda Jangam” was interpolated in

the school record of the Petitioner, and therefore Respondent No.2 –

Scrutiny Committee has rightly discarded the said documentary

evidence. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly not considered the

validity certificates issued to the blood relatives of the Petitioner, as

Sameer 5 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

they had obtained the caste certificates not from the area where their

families were ordinarily residing, and therefore the caste certificates

issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, cannot be said to be the

valid document. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, had no

jurisdiction to issue validity certificate to the Petitioner’s relatives, as

they were not ordinarily residing within its jurisdiction, and the same

were obtained by practicing fraud. The Petitioner, the Petitioner’s

relatives and the Petitioner’s father played the fraud and claimed that,

they belong to the “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. The entry in old

documents of the Petitioner’s relatives is that of “Lingayat”. It is the

settled position under the law that, the entry in the Schedule of the

Constitution is to be read as it is, and no words can either be included,

nor deleted from the same. The oldest entry in the record of great-

great-grandfather of the Petitioner was “Linga”, which means

“Lingayat”, which is not the Scheduled Caste. There was manipulation in

the school record of the Petitioner’s father. The Indian Franchise

Committee Report 1932 defines the term “Depressed Classes”, and the

customary profession of the Petitioner’s family was offering prayers in

the Hindu temples, and the great-grandfather of the Petitioner was

appointed as “Mathadhipati” or to officiate as a priest in Temples such

as Shree. Kalleshwar, Shree. Basweshwar and Shree. Brahmadev by the

King of Kolhapur. Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee gone through

Sameer 6 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

the proceedings of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, wherein, the

orders were passed that, lands were allotted as Inam lands to the family

of the Petitioner for performing the puja / prayer in the aforesaid

Temples. The Scrutiny Committee has referred the matter to the Law

and Judiciary Department for filing the Writ Petition before this Court

for cancellation of the validity certificates issued to the relatives of the

Petitioner, as they were obtained by playing fraud. The notices issued to

the Petitioner’s relatives holding validity certificates for cancelling the

same is merely a ministerial act and can be no reason to grant validity to

the Petitioner. Granting any relief to the Petitioner would tantamount

to granting a benefit arising out of an illegality committed by him. No

case exists to interfere in the impugned order, and the Petition be

dismissed and further directions for initiation of criminal proceedings

be issued. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following

Judgments :

[a] Siddappa Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board passed by
the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition
No.13983/1978 on 09.04.1985;
[b] Union of India and Others Vs. Dudh Nath Prasad;
(2000) 2 SCC 20 ;
[c] Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others Vs. Yadav
Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRs and Others;
(2004) 8 SCC 706;

[d] Ketaki Bhumayya Muttepod Vs. The State of
Maharashtra passed by the Division Bench
(Aurangabad Bench) of this Court in Writ Petition

Sameer 7 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

No.11751/2025 and Writ Petition No.11829/2025 on
20.07.2026 ;
[e] State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others; (2001) 1
SCC 4 ;
[f] Priyanka Mahesh Jangam Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others ; 2007 (6) Mh.LJ 709;
[g] Dhanashri Chambayya Swami Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others ; 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 545 ;
[h] Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles alias Navneet
Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others; (2024) 12 SCC 264 ;
[i] Ashish Balaji Sawant Vs. Jalindar Tukaram Khaire
and Others; 2025 SCC Online Bom 2427 ;

[j] Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah Vs. Ramachandra
Veerappa and Another; (1996) 4 SCC 431 ;
[k] Santosh Anil Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department and Another; 2025 SCC Online Bom
2820 ;

4. Before considering the contentions of the parties and examining

the case on merits, it would be appropriate to consider the aforesaid

decisions cited by both the sides.

[A] In Abhishek Mahendra Umbarje (supra), the challenge was to the

decision of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim towards

“Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner therein had relied on

the several documents, including the validity certificate issued to his

blood relatives. Considering the decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale

Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee; (2010) 6 Mah.

Sameer 8 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

L.J. 401, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that, if the

Committee has validated the tribe claim of the candidate as belonging

to the Scheduled Tribe, then the other close blood relatives cannot be

denied the validation of tribe certificates unless, of course, case of

fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts is made out, and

considering the Judgment in Anand Katole Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste

Scrutiny Committee; (2012) 1 SCC 113, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex

Court emphasised that, while dealing with the documentary evidence,

greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents

because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the

declaration of status as a caste as compared to post-independence

documents, set aside the order of the caste Scrutiny Committee being

incomplete disregard to the judicial pronouncements and directed the

Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate to the Petitioner as

belonging to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.

[B] In Sayanna (supra), the challenge was to the decision of the

Division Bench, by which the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,

cancelling and confiscating the caste certificate issued by the concerned

authority, was affirmed. The caste certificate issued in favour of the son

of Appellant was sent for verification. The Scrutiny Committee validated

the tribe claim of the Petitioner’s son. The Petitioner contested the

election to the post of President, Municipal Council, which was reserved

Sameer 9 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

for Scheduled Tribe, and got elected. The caste certificate of the

Petitioner was sent for verification. The Vigilance Cell submitted its

report stating that, in the column of caste mentioned in the school

record, the word “lu” was subsequently added. By considering the

documents on record, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the

Petitioner’s tribe claim and directed confiscation of the caste certificate.

It was observed that, on what basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the

conclusion that, the word “lu” was interpolated in the register of the

school, more particularly, it was not so opined by the Police Inspector

who had conducted the enquiry and it was an admitted position that,

the Scrutiny Committee had never attempted to get an expert’s opinion

nor itself had compared the disputed letters with admitted one of the

Appellant. It was observed that, the finding recorded by the Scrutiny

Committee in respect of interpolation was held to be not based on any

credible evidence. The order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the

Petitioner’s claim was held to be bad, being based on irrelevant

considerations, and the same was set aside.

[C] In Siddappa (supra), the Single Bench of the Kanataka High Court

was dealing with the case where the Petitioner was an Applicant for

recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Karnataka

Electricity Board. In order to claim the benefit of reservation made in

favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, he produced the

Sameer 10 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar, to the effect that he

belonged to Bed Jangam (SC) recognised as Scheduled Caste. The

Appointing Authority, insisted for production of better particulars to

establish that, he belonged to Beda Jangam community. As no

appointment was offered to the Petitioner, he approached the Court for

directions to issue the appointment order without insisting for

production of fresh caste certificate or better particulars. The Bench

considered the inclusion of “Beda Jangam” caste in the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders Act, 1976 at Serial No. 19. The

Bench considered the circular issued by the Commissioner and Secretary

to the Government, Social Welfare and Labour Department and

observed that, “Jangama” was not the same as “Beda Jangam”, which

was treated as Scheduled Caste and “Jangama” was the sub-caste of

Veerashaiva or Lingayath community. It was observed that, on the basis

of the said circular, the Petitioner was called upon to obtain a fresh

certificate indicating that, he belonged to the “Beda Jangam” caste. It

was observed that, nowhere in the Petition, it was asserted that, the

Petitioner does not belong to sub-caste or sect of of Lingayath or

Veerashaiva community but belongs to “Beda Jangam” caste, which was

considered as Scheduled Caste. It was observed that, it was for the

Appointing Authority to satisfy itself whether a candidate belongs to

Scheduled Caste or otherwise. The Petition was dismissed.

Sameer 11 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

[D] In Dudh Nath Prasad (supra), the issue involved was whether the

Scheduled Caste certificate produced by the Respondent could be

accepted as valid for the purpose of appointment to a Central

Government service. The Respondent and his parents belonged to

“Nuniya” caste which was a Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal

but not in the State of Bihar. The Respondent’s parents were living in

District Howrah in West Bengal continuously for more than 30 years

before the Respondent joined service in the office of the Comptroller

and Auditor General of India. The parents, before coming to West

Bengal, were living in Siwan District in the State of Bihar where they

also owned some property. The Respondent was born in that District, he

had schooling and graduated from a college in Bihar. He initially joined

service in Customs House, Calcutta (West Bengal) and while working

there, he obtained a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate from the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Howrah and applied to UPSC as an SC candidate. The

UPSC made necessary inquiries and accepted the Respondent as a

candidate belonging to “Nuniya” caste, which was the Scheduled Caste

in West Bengal and confirmed his candidature. The Respondent

qualified the examination and the Government appointed him against

reserved vacancy as an SC candidate. The UPSC led the instructions to

the effect that, “a candidate who claims belonging to the SCs or STs

should submit in support of his claim a certificate from the competent

Sameer 12 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

authority of the district in which his parents or surviving parent

ordinarily reside. There was a “Note” in the form which clarified that the

expression “ordinarily reside” will have the same meaning as in Section

20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, by considering the

meaning of the words “reside”, “residence” and “ordinarily”. It was

observed that, notwithstanding that the parents of the respondent

lived at one time in a village in District Siwan in the State of Bihar and

that they owned some property also there, they had shifted to the State

of West Bengal long ago and had been living there since then. For all

intents and purposes, therefore, they shall be treated to be "or-dinarily

residing” in the State of West Bengal and found that, the Respondent

was rightly considered and appointed against the Scheduled Caste post

as the caste “Nuniya” was the Scheduled Caste in the State of West

Bengal.

[E] In Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others (supra), the challenge was

to the order of the Single Judge holding the decree sought to be

executed against the Petitioners, (Respondents therein), as void ab

initio. The question for consideration was whether the decree passed by

the trial court can be said to be 'null’ and 'void'. It was observed that,

the distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is

wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be

overlooked or ignored. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in

Sameer 13 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such

court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. A defect

of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at

the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such

defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree

or order passed by a Court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a

nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage,

even in execution or collateral proceedings.

[F] In Ketaki Bhumayya Muttepod (supra), the challenge was to the

order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim towards

“Scheduled Tribe” by recording suppression of fact and fraudulent

record. The validation earlier granted by the Scrutiny Committee to

close relative of the Petitioners was relied upon by them, but the

invalidation of another close relative was evidently suppressed. The

validation upon which the Petitioners had relied upon, was re-opened by

the Committee on account of surfaced fraud played by the candidate

while securing validity. By considering all the aspects of the matter and

the relevant Judgments, dismissed the Writ Petition.

[G] In Milind (supra), it was observed that, it was not at all

permissible to hold an enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or

declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any

Sameer 14 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it

is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be

read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part

of or group of any tribe or tribal community was synonymous to the one

mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically

mentioned in it. A notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342,

specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by

the Parliament. It was not open for the State Governments or for the

Courts or for the Tribunals or for any other authority to modify, amend

or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued

under Clause (1) of Article 342.

[H] In Priyanka Mahesh Jangam (supra), the matter pertained to the

invalidation of the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to “Beda

Jangam”. The documents submitted in support of the caste claim,

included the school register, wherein, the caste of the paternal

grandfather of the Petitioner was shown as “Lingayat”. It was the oldest

document on record. The school leaving certificate of the Petitioner’s

father also recorded the caste as “Hindu-Lingayat”. The Vigilance Cell

reported that, as per the home visit and verification of the custom, the

Petitioner belonged to Beda-Jangam caste. It was observed that, where

the documentary evidence was absent, the report of the Vigilance Cell

Sameer 15 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

assumes great importance for the purpose of deciding the issue but

does not mean that even in a case where the documentary evidence was

deliberately withheld being likely to be adverse or is contrary to the

claim made by the Petitioner, such documentary evidence was to be

ignored altogether.

[I] In Dhanashri Chambayya Swami (supra), the challenge was to the

invalidation of the claim towards “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. It

was found that, in the school record, the caste of the Petitioner and her

brother was shown as “Hindu Beda Jangam”, but it appears from the

Vigilance Report that word “Beda Jangam” in the caste certificate of the

brother of the Petitioner was subsequently written and there was

erassion of original words “Lingayat”. The Petitioner’s father was born

in 1939 and his school leaving certificate showed his caste as “Hindu

Lingayat”, but in the service-book his caste was shown as “Beda

Jangam” Scheduled Caste. This Court found that, the Scrutiny

Committee considered the documentary evidence and no fault was

found with the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste

claim.

[J] In Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles (supra), the subject

matter was the claim towards the Scheduled Caste “Mochi”. Considering

the scope of the interference in the writ jurisdiction, it was observed

Sameer 16 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

that, the writ jurisdiction was supervisory and the Court exercising it,

ought to refrain to act as an the Appellate Court unless the facts so

warrant. It also ought not to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute

its own conclusion interfering with a finding unless perverse. It

observed that, the High Court went into a probe regarding the

credibility of the opinion of the Scrutiny Committee because the writ

court felt the need to substitute its own views. In case if the findings of

the Scrutiny Committee are based on the materials specified under Rule

16 followed by its subjective satisfaction, then exercise of jurisdiction

under writ of certiorari to quash the order of validation of caste claim by

the Scrutiny Committee was unwarranted and uncalled for. It was

further observed that, roving inquiry under the jurisdiction of Article

226 was not expected as per settled legal position.

[K] In Ashish Balaji Sawant (supra), the challenge was to the order

passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee. It was found that, in

the facts of the said case, the reliance in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay

Nichale (supra) was misplaced. While the Judgment holds a contrary

view taken by a subsequent Committee, in itself may not invalidate an

earlier caste validity certificate, it also categorically lays down that if the

earlier certificate was obtained by fraud, the Committee dealing with

the subsequent claim is neither bound to follow the earlier caste validity

Sameer 17 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

certificate nor precluded from rejecting the claim. In such

circumstances, the Committee was also empowered to initiate

appropriate action against the Applicant.

[L] In Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah (supra), the challenge was to the

decision in the Election Petition, wherein the Appellant filed his

nomination as Scheduled Caste candidate. The nomination was rejected

by the Returning Officer by holding that, the candidate was not

belonging to Beda Jangam and he belonged to the Veerashiva

Jangamma. It is observed that, under Item 19 of the 1976, Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act in relation to the State of

Karnataka, “Beda Jangamma” or “Budaga Jangamma” were declared as

Scheduled Castes. The question, therefore was whether Veerashiva

Lingayath would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda

Jangamma) within the notification issued by the President. It was

observed that, it was settled law that, the courts cannot give any

declaration that, the status with synonymous names of castes claimed

by the party was conformable to the names specified in the Presidential

Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.

[M] In Santosh Anil Kolhe (supra), the challenge was to the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee, whereby earlier orders granting

validity certificates to the tribe claim of the Petitioners were cancelled

Sameer 18 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

and their claims were invalidated. The Scrutiny Committee exercised the

power, to re-call its own earlier orders on the ground that such orders

were obtained by the Petitioners on the basis of suppressions and

misrepresentations. It was noticed that, there appeared to be an

apparent cleavage in the approach adopted by the various division

benches on the question as to whether the Scrutiny Committee can at

all exercise power to recall its own earlier orders on the limited ground

that such orders were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It was

observed that, though it is well founded in the decisions of Rakesh

Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2023 63 OnLine

Bom 1013 and particularly in Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of

Maharashtra; 2024 (7) ALL MR 45 to the effect that, if a blanket power

of recall is bestowed upon the Scrutiny Committee despite the fact that

the Act of 2000 does not provide a power of review, there is a possibility

of indiscriminate or rampant use of such power, which would destabilize

and upset the claims of the individuals belonging to the same family.

But, that in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances

can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power of recalling its

earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud,

misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It cannot be

countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity

certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud,

Sameer 19 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed

subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases. It is

also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to

examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it

has some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court

exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court framed certain questions for reference to be answered by a

Larger Bench. The questions referred are as follows:

i. Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act
of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground
that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression
of material facts ?
ii. Being a creature of the statute ie the Act of 2000, the
Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive
review due to absence of any such provision under the said
statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its
inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ?

iii. If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of
recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the
contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied
so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is
avoided ?
iv. Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking
leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in
Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000?
v. Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in
the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje V. State of
Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of
Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited
extent indicated above ?
5. The issuance and verification of the caste certificates for the

Scheduled Caste is governed by the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Sameer 20 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

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 and Rules of

2012 framed thereunder. As per the provisions of Section 8 of the said

Act, the burden is on the Applicant, who makes the Application to the

Competent Authority and Scrutiny Committee, to prove his claim.

6. The record shows that, the Petitioner submitted the genealogy to

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee. There is no dispute in respect

of the genealogy submitted by the Petitioner. The same is reproduced

below :

Sameer 21 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

7. The Petitioner applied for verification of his caste certificate as

belonging to “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste. The impugned order

shows that, in support of his claim, the Petitioner submitted twenty six

(26) documents, the details of which are given below :

Sr. Descriptions Caste Relation with
Nos. the Petitioner
1 The Petitioner’s caste certificate Beda Self
issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangam
Gadhinglaj.
2 The school leaving certificate of the Beda Self
Petitioner. Jangam
3 School leaving certificate of Hindu and Father
Mahadev Shankarayya Turbatmath Lingayat
@ Mathpati, wherein the date of Beda
birth is mentioned as 01.01.1934 Jangam
and the date of school admission is
mentioned as 01.10.1942.
4 Mutation Entry No.38651 by the ---- Self and father
Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj, wherein, the
name of Petitioner and his father
came to be mutated.
5 The property extract wherein the ---- Grandfather,
name of Shankarayya Gurusatayya father and
Mathpati came to be recorded in uncle
1945 and after his death, the names
of his legal representatives were
mutated.
6 Mutation Entry No.13350 of 1977, ---- Grandfather,
wherein the name of Shankarayya father and
Gurusatayya Mathpati was recorded uncle
and after his death, the names of
his legal representatives came to be
mutated.
7 The school leaving certificate issued Hindu Uncle
by P. M. Shri Barrister Nath Pai Lingayat
School in the name of Vishwanath Beda

Sameer 22 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

Shankarayya Turbatmath @ Jangam
Mathpati, wherein the date of birth
is mentioned as 17.11.1938 and
school admission dated is
mentioned as 03.11.1947.
8 The school leaving certificate issued Hindu Cousin nephew
by the Raosaheb Kitturkar, Junior Beda
College, Gadhinglaj in the name of Jangam
Shivraj Basavraj Turbatmath,
wherein the date of birth is
mentioned as 14.11.1987 and
school admission dated is
mentioned as 30.06.2003.
9 Death certificate of Shankarayya ---- Grandfather
Gurusatayya Mathpati issued on
20.02.2026 by the Municipal
Council, Gadhinglaj.
10 7/12 extract in respect of ---- Grandfather
Devasthan Inam land of the year
1956 / 1957 wherein the name of
cultivator / possessor is mentioned
as Shri Kalleshwar Devalay -
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati.
11 7/12 extract in respect of ---- Grandfather
Devasthan Inam land of the year
1946 / 1947 wherein the name of
cultivator / possessor is mentioned
as Shri Brahmadev Devalay–
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
12 7/12 extract in respect of ---- Grandfather
Devasthan Inam land of the year
1945/ 1946, wherein the name of
cultivator / possessor is mentioned
as Shri Basveshwar Dev –
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
13 The death certificate of Appasaheb ---- Uncle
Shankarayya Turbatmath issued on
20.02.2026 by the Municipal
Council, Gadhinglaj.

Sameer 23 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

14 The caste certificate issued by Beda Uncle
Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj dated Jangam
02.08.1978 in the name of
Appasaheb Shankarayya
Turbatmath.
15 The caste certificate issued by the Beda Cousin brother
Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj dated Jangam
10.10.1985 in the name of Prakash
Appasaheb Turbatmath.
16 A certified copy of the document --- Grandfather
from the Superintendent Public
Trusts Registration Office,
Kolhapur, giving reference of Sanad
of the year 1952 in the name of
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
@ Turbatmath
17 A certified copy of the document ---- Great
from the Superintendent Public grandfather
Trusts Registration Office, and
Kolhapur, wherein the name of Grandfather
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
came to be entered after the death
of Gurusatayya Baslingayya
Mathpati @ Turbatmath on
20.11.1920
18 The document issued by the ---- Great-great
Superintendent Public Trusts grandfather,
Registration Office, Kolhapur, Great
wherein the reference of statement Grandfather
given on 21.08.1897 in respect of
the profession of Baslingayya
Nurudayya Mathpati and his
ancestor was given as offering
prayers and seeking alms.
19 Certified copy issued by the ---- Grandfather
Superintendent Public Trusts
Registration Office, Kolhapur in
respect of decision on Application
No.1028/1952, wherein it is
mentioned that, in 1882, there was
Sanad in respect of Inam land of

Sameer 24 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

religious place Shri. Kalleshwardev,
Shri Basveshwardev and
Shri Brahmadev, in favour of
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
@ Turbatmath.
20 Certified copy of decision in ---- Grandfather
Application No.1028/1952 and
Appeal No.124/1954 dated
08.11.1952 by the Charity
Commissioner, wherein there is
reference of Inam land in favour of
Shankarayya Gurusatayya Mathpati
@ Turbatmath in lieu of offering
the prayers at the religious place
Shri. Kalleshwardev, Shri.
Basveshwardev and Shri.
Brahmadev.
21 The caste validity certificate dated Beda Cousin brother
11.05.2012 issued by the Scrutiny Jangam
Committee, Pune to Prakash
Appasaheb Turbatmath.
22 The caste validity certificate dated Beda Cousin nephew
18.02.2014 issued by the Scrutiny Jangam
Committee, Pune to Amit Prakash
Turbatmath.
23 The school leaving certificate of Hind Beda Cousin nephew
Amit Prakash Turbatmath issued by Jangam
Jaywantrao Sawant College of Scheduled
Engineering, Pune wherein the date Caste
of birth is mentioned as 12.09.1992.
24 The affidavit of Amit Prakash ---- Cousin nephew
Turbatmath dated 02.04.2026
wherein the genealogy is given
showing the Petitioner as the blood
relative.
25 The affidavits of residence of ---- ----
Gadhinglaj stating that, they know
the family of the Petitioner and
their ancestral used to seek alms
and perform the religious rituals /

Sameer 25 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

prayers and they are Beda Jangam
by caste and also used to offer the
prayers at the religious place Shri
Kalleshwardev, Shri Basveshwardev
and Shri Brahmadev.
26 A copy of statement dated ---- Great great
14.06.1897 of Baslingayya grandfather
Nurudayya Mathpati during the
inquiry for mutating the names in
respect of the lands of the religious
place Shri Kalleshwardev, Shri
Basveshwardev & Shri Brahmadev,
wherein the profession is
mentioned as offerring the prayers
and seeking alms.

8. The aforesaid chart goes to show that, only the documents at

Serial No.3 and Serial No.7, which are the entries in the school records in

respect of the Petitioner’s father and Petitioner’s uncle, are the oldest

documents prior to 1950, i.e. the pre-Constitution period. The other

documents upon which the Petitioner relied in support of his caste claim

are two (02) validity certificates issued in the name of the Petitioner’s

cousin brother and cousin nephew by the Scrutiny Committee at Pune.

There is no dispute that, the Petitioner’s cousin brother - Prakash

Appasaheb Turbatmath, and the Petitioner’s cousin nephew - Amit

Prakash Turbatmath are holding the validity certificates as belonging to

“Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste issued by the Scrutiny Committee at

Pune. The record goes to show that, Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny

Committee called the information in respect of the validity certificates

Sameer 26 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

issued to the said blood relatives of the Petitioner. Accordingly, vide

communication dated 28.04.2026, the Pune Scrutiny Committee

informed Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee about the same.

Perusal of the said communication, which is at Page No.711 of the

record, goes to show that, the validity issued to Prakash Appasaheb

Turbatmath, i.e. the Petitioner’s cousin brother was bearing No.67904

dated 11.05.2012, and the original file in respect of the same was not

found, except the copy of validity certificate. The said communication

further shows that, the validity issued to Amit Prakash Turbatmath was

bearing No.663420 dated 18.02.2014 and copies of the documents from

the original file were made available with the said communication.

Perusal of the documents enclosed with the said communication goes

to show that, there is a copy of an undated order at Page No.719, in

respect of Amit Prakash Turbatmath, wherein it is observed that, the

Committee was fully satisfied about the genuineness of the documents

submitted by the Applicant, i.e. Amit Prakash Turbatmath, and

therefore the Scrutiny Committee decided to issue the validity

certificate, forthwith, without any inquiry by the Vigilance Cell or calling

the Applicant for any hearing. However, the copies of documents at

Page Nos.723, 725, 727 and 729 goes to show that, it was the report of

the Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee at Kolhapur in respect of

Amit Prakash Turbatmath. It is strange that, though the said documents

Sameer 27 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

show the report of the Vigilance Cell of the Kolhapur Scrutiny

Committee, the said undated order records that, without any inquiry by

the Vigilance Cell, the Committee was satisfied in respect of the claim of

Amit Prakash Turbatmath towards “Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste.

However, it is clear from the said undated order that, the validity

certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee at Pune in favour of cousin

nephew of the Petitioner was issued without referring the case for

inquiry by the Vigilance Cell.

9. True it is that, as per Rule 17 of the said Rules, it is not always

mandatory for the Scrutiny Committee to refer the claim for verification

to the Vigilance Cell for carrying out suitable inquiry. However, the

aforesaid documents on record do show copies of the Vigilance Cell

report. The undated order records that, the validity was issued without

any inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The copy of the Vigilance Cell report

bears the stamp of the Inward Section of the Pune Scrutiny Committee,

with Outward No.560 dated 26.07.2012 and this goes to show that,

while issuing the said validity certificate to Amit Prakash Turbatmath on

18.02.2014, the Vigilance Cell report was available before the Scrutiny

Committee at Pune. At the same time, the roznama / order sheet dated

28.02.2014 speaks of the Vigilance Cell report. Therefore, it is clear that,

the validity certificate issued to the Petitioner’s cousin nephew -

Sameer 28 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

Amit Prakash Turbatmath, was issued without considering the Vigilance

Cell report, which was available.

10. As regards the validity certificate towards “Beda Jangam”

Scheduled Caste of the Petitioner’s cousin brother – Prakash Appasaheb

Turbatmath is concerned, the aforesaid communication / letter dated

28.04.2026 from the Pune Scrutiny Committee to Respondent No.2 –

Scrutiny Committee clearly shows that, the original file was not found. It

is strange that, the file of the validity certificate dated 11.05.2012 in

respect of the Petitioner’s cousin brother was not available with the

Pune Scrutiny Committee. It is not that, the said file was of very old

period. From the year, it is seen that, the said validity certificate of

Prakash Appasaheb Turbatmath was issued two (02) years prior to the

validity certificate issued to Amit Prakash Turbatmath, and therefore

non-availability of the original file is strange. There is nothing to show

that, the validity certificate of the Petitioner’s cousin brother – Prakash

Appasaheb Turbatmath was issued by the Pune Scrutiny Committee

after following the required procedure, which is required to be followed

while examining the caste claim.

11. Useful reference can be made to the observations in the case of

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Others; AIR 2023 SC 1657, wherein it is observed

Sameer 29 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

that, in the cases where the Applicant relies upon caste validity

certificates issued to his blood relatives, such a validity certificate has to

be issued either by the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the

directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case; (1994) 6 SCC 241 or

constituted under the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case,

firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the validity

certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to

decide whether the Applicant has established that, the person to whom

the validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood

relative. For that purpose, the Applicant must establish his precise and

exact relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has

been granted. Moreover, an inquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny

Committee whether the validity certificate has been granted to the

blood relative of the Applicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee

after holding due enquiry and following due procedure. If it is

established that, the validity certificate has been granted without

holding a proper inquiry or without recording reasons, obviously, the

Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot validate the caste certificate only on

the basis of such validity certificate of the blood relatives.

12. The Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee has considered the

said validity certificates issued to the blood relatives of the Petitioner

Sameer 30 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

and discarded the same by observing that, the said blood relatives of

the Petitioner were ordinarily residing at Gadhinglaj, District – Kolhapur,

they got certificates from the concerned authority at Pune and the

cousin brother of the Petitioner – Prakash Appasaheb Turbatmath was

holding a caste certificate dated 10.10.1985 issued by the Competent

Authority at Gadhinglaj, and even then he obtained another caste

certificate dated 10.08.2001 from the authority at Pune. The

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee, by quoting the observations

from the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), discarded the said

two (02) validity certificates of the blood relatives of the Petitioner. In

light of the above observations from the record, we do not find that,

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee has committed any error in

discarding the said (02) two validity certificates, though the reason for

rejection are somewhat different than the one which we have noticed

after going through the record as referred-above. Under such

circumstances, the validity certificates of the cousin brother and cousin

nephew will not enure to the benefit of the Petitioner. It is clear from

the operative order that, Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee has

started independent action for cancellation of the said two (02) validity

certificates issued to the blood relatives of the Petitioner. The record

shows that, Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee had written a letter

to the Director of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Research and Training

Sameer 31 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

Institute (BARTI), Pune to file a petition in the High Court for

cancellation of the said two (02) validity certificates. The said step by

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee appears to have been taken in

light of the reference made to the Larger Bench as to whether the

Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to

recall its order on the ground that, it is vitiated by fraud,

misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. In the impugned

order, Respondent No.2 – Committee has recorded that, the validity

certificates were the result of misrepresentation and fraud. Therefore,

the said course of action adopted by Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny

Committee shows that, the necessary steps are initiated for cancellation

of the said validity certificates.

13. The another important aspect of the matter is the old documents.

Undisputedly, the oldest documents submitted by the Petitioner in

support of his caste claim, as is clear from the above chart, are the

entries in the school records of the Petitioner’s father and Petitioner’s

uncle. Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee considered the said

documents and discarded the same for the reasons mentioned in the

impugned order. As regards the entry of the year – 1942 in the school

record of the Petitioner’s father, Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee

observed that, there was interpolation in the said entry as the word

Sameer 32 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

“Beda Jangam” was in different ink as compared to the ink, in which the

words “Hindu” and “Lingayat” were written. The Respondent No.2 –

Scrutiny Committee had referred the said documents for the opinion of

handwriting experts. The said entry at Serial No.68 in respect of the

Petitioner’s father is reproduced below :

Sameer 33 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

13.1 The record shows that, the Assistant State Examiner of

Documents, Handwriting and Photography Bureau, C.I.D., Maharashtra

State, Pune submitted its report in respect of the said entry. It shows

that, the said document / entry was referred for its opinion. The said

report dated 02.04.2026 at Page No.569 of the record notes that, the

document was examined carefully and thoroughly with the aid of

scientific equipments by comparison process and it opined that, the

enclosed writings marked as Exhibit – B [the word “Beda Jangam”] and

Exhibit – A [the word “Hindu and Lingayat”] were examined and it

revealed that, the tint of ink was different with each other. It further

observed that, in absence of proper and adequate standard data for

comparison, it has not been possible to express any definite opinion

regarding their authorship of the enclosed writing marked as Exhibit – B

when compared with the enclosed writing marked as Exhibit – A. The said

expert’s opinion becomes relevant. No fault can be found with the

observations of Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in discarding

the said pre-Costitution era document on the ground of interpolation,

which is supported by an expert’s opinion. We do not find any reason to

differ with the said observations of Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny

Committee since it is based on the documents on record. Thus, the said

school entry of the Petitioner’s father cannot form the basis to validate

the caste claim.

Sameer 34 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

14. As regards the another pre-Constitution era document in respect

of the Petitioner’s uncle is concerned, the same is of the year – 1947,

which is the date of admission in the school. The observations in the

impugned order goes to show that, the said document was also referred

to the opinion of handwriting experts and it records that, the tint of ink

of the enclosed writing marked as Exhibit – C [“Hindu Lingayat Beda

Jangam”] was same and when writing examined inter-se, show similarities

in writing habits indicating towards their common authorship. This shows

that, the said entry was written at the same time or by the same ink. The

Committee observed that, if the said entry in respect of the Petitioner’s

uncle in the school record was compared to the other entries on the

same page, it shows that, the said entry was written in different ink.

Even if the said aspect that, the said entry differs from the other entries

on the same page is kept aside or discarded, the said entry in respect of

caste is not simpliciter as “Beda Jangam”. The said entry is “Hindu-

Lingayat Beda Jangam”. The Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee has

rightly placed reliance on the observations in the case of Milind (supra)

that, the entry of caste in the Presidential Order must be read as it is

and it is not permissible to hold that, a tribe, sub-tribe, part or group of

any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in

the Scheduled Tribes Order. There cannot be any dispute in respect of

the settled legal position that, the entries in the Presidential Order in

Sameer 35 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

respect of caste and tribe are to be read as it is. As the said entry

mentions “Hindu-Lingayat Beda Jangam”, which is not the caste

mentioned in the Presidential Order of 1950, the said old entry cannot

be of any assistance to the Petitioner to validate his caste claim.

15. True it is that, the pre-Constitution era documents have more

probative value. As the aforesaid one old entry of father relied by the

Petitioner, do not qualify the test of genuineness and the other old

entry of uncle runs contrary to the caste entry in the Presidential Order

of 1950 as the “Beda Jangam” caste, both the said old documents will

not enure to the benefit of the Petitioner to support his caste claim

towards “Beda Jangam” caste. On the basis of the documents on record,

no fault can be found with the Committee’s observations and findings in

discarding the said two (02) old documents. It is clear from the aforesaid

chart showing the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of

his caste claim that, there is no other document prior to 1950 of the

blood relatives of the Petitioner showing the caste as “Beda Jangam”.

16. As regards the school leaving certificate of the Petitioner’s father

– Mahadev dated 31.10.2025 issued by the Barrister Nath Pai school

Gadhinglaj, wherein the date of school entry is mentioned as

01.10.1942, do not show the caste as “Beda Jangam”. It shows the

religion and caste as “Hindu-Lingayat Beda Jangam”. Therefore, this

Sameer 36 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

document also do not qualify the test of caste entry if examined in light

of the Presidential Order of 1950, which shows the caste at Serial No.9

as “Beda Jangam, Budga Jangam” and not “Lingayat Beda Jangam”. The

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee considered all the documents

available on record, and invalidated the Petitioner’s claim towards

“Beda Jangam” Scheduled Caste.

17. Though there are statements / affidavits of villagers from the

village – Gadhinglaj to support the Petitioner’s caste claim, the caste

claim is required to be established / proved on the basis of documents

available on record. The said statements of villagers cannot form the

basis to validate the Petitioner’s claim by ignoring the documentary

evidence. As is clear from the aforesaid chart, there is no mention of

caste in several documents, which the Petitioner submitted in support

of his caste claim.

18. In light of the discussion above, we find no fault with Respondent

No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in invalidating the Tribe claim of the

Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions

relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner are of no

assistance to interfere with the impugned order.

19. When the Petition was listed for hearing on 24.08.2026, we made

the following observations in the order passed on that date. The same is

Sameer 37 of 38
WP-2627-2026.doc

reproduced as under :

“1. During the hearing of the petition, we noted with distress that
the Law Officer of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, with promptness,
was assisting the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4.
We noted that the original records brought by the Law Officer, were
handed over by the Law Officer to the Advocate for Respondent
No.4, without seeking permission from the learned AGP, who is
representing the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The quasi-judicial
authority is expected to be neutral and not demonstrate bias in
favour of any one party. We expect that the higher authorities
would take note of this fact.

2. Though the matter was heard extensively, Mr. Talekar,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 would seek time to
file written submission.

3. At his request, stand over on 27th August 2026, under the
caption of ‘Direction’.

19.1. We expect that, the higher authorities of Respondent No.2

– Scrutiny Committee will take note of the said observations and do the

needful so that such conduct is not repeated by its officials.

20. In light of the above discussion, the Petition fails and hence, the

same is dismissed. The record be returned to the learned AGP so as to

handover the same to the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Sameer 38 of 38

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…