Bombay High Court

GAURI RAJENDRA GANAGAVANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ANR

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s order and remanded the case for a de novo hearing, directing consideration of the entire school register evidence.

Summary

The petitioner, Gauri Rajendra Gangavane, sought to quash the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee that denied her claim to Thakar Scheduled Tribe status and to obtain a Tribe Validity Certificate. The High Court had earlier granted interim relief protecting her admission to MET's Institute of Management, Mumbai. During the hearing, the court examined original school register entries, noting that Entry 28 showed the petitioner’s paternal uncle as Hindu Thakar, which the Scrutiny Committee had overlooked, while it had relied on Entry 66 suggesting an interpolation to Maratha Thakar. The court found that the Committee failed to consider the complete register evidence and therefore erred in its decision. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a de novo hearing, directing that the petitioner’s admission remain protected pending the new decision.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred by overlooking relevant school register entries in rejecting the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim.
Whether the order dated 9 September 2024 should be quashed on the ground of procedural and evidential infirmities.
Whether the matter should be remanded for a de novo hearing considering the omitted evidence.
Whether the petitioner’s admission to the postgraduate course should be protected pending final determination.

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe certificate
Caste validity
Quash order
De novo hearing
Admission protection
School register evidence

Judgment

15-wp-3-2025.doc
jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
WRIT PETITION NO.3 OF 2025
JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
NIJASURE Date:
2026.09.17
Gauri Rajendra Gangavane ...Petitioner
11:19:34
+0530

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.17457 OF 2024
Aruna Arjun Gangawane ...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Priyanka Shaw and Mr. Jagdish Kawale
for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP in WP No.3 of 2025.
Shri P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP in WP
No.17457 of 2024.
Mr. Abhijit Gosavi for Respondent No.3 – Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad in
WP No.17457 of 2024.
Mr. Krishna Tukaram Chavan, Authorized by Krushali Krishna
Chavan, Incharge Head Master of ZPPurva Prathamik School, Kudal,
Sangirde.
----------

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.
O R D E R:

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

of parties.

1/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing

and setting aside of impugned Order dated 9th September, 2024

passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Thane (“Scrutiny Committee”). Further, it be held that

the Petitioner belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe, and the

Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee be directed to issue Tribe

Validity Certificate to the Petitioner.

2. By an Order dated 4th September 2025, this Court had

granted ad-interim relief in view of the Petitioner having been

allotted a College, viz. MET's Institute of Management, Mumbai for

the Master's Course, and it was directed that this allotment shall not

be cancelled until the next date. The ad-interim order has been

continued thereafter and is operational today.

3. By a subsequent Order dated 3rd September 2026, this

Court had recorded the statement of learned AGP appearing for

Respondent – State that there are documents which were before the

the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee and which will be

produced on the next date viz. today. Direction was issued to

Respondent - State to grant inspection of the original documents

2/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

which they are relying upon to the Petitioner prior to the next date.

4. The Respondent - State has thereafter granted inspection

to the Petitioner and has submitted a compilation of documents as

directed by this Court. The original School Record/School Register

has also been produced by the Respondent - State today.

5. Mr. Laxman Krishnat Tukaram Chavan, who was In-

charge Head Master of the School viz. Zilla Parishad Primary School,

Kudal, Sangirde is present today.

6. Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner has referred to the compilation of documents which have

been produced by the Respondent – State. He has submitted that

apart from these documents, there is one document viz. Extract of the

School Register showing Entry No.28 which is relevant and has not

been produced. This pertains to the Entry of Dashrath Ladu

Gangavane and his caste being that of Hindu Thakar as well as the

date of admission to Primary School viz. 9th January, 1950. The said

Entry has not been considered by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee.

3/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

7. Mr. Mendadkar has taken this Court through the

documents forming part of the compilation produced by the

Respondent – State. This includes at Page No. 3, an Extract of the

school Register showing Entry 144 which refers to the said Entry 28.

Here Dashrath Ladu Gangavane has been shown as Hindu Thakar. He

has submitted that there is no interpolation in so far as these Entries

are concerned.

8. Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that the Respondent No.2

Scrutiny Committee had relied upon the Extract of the School

Entry 66 to hold that there is interpolation by adding the caste

Maratha Thakar. This finding is without considering the prior Entry

28 wherein Dashrath Ladu Gangavane, has been shown having caste

Hindu Thakar without there being any interpolation.

9. Mr. Mendadkar has in this context taken this Court

through the relevant findings in the impugned order. He has

submitted that the relevant Entries in the School Register ought to

have been considered in totality and which includes Entry 28. He has

accordingly sought for the matter to be remanded back in order for it

4/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

to be heard de novo by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee.

10. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent - State

has placed reliance upon the Affidavit-in-Reply of the Respondent -

State, and in particular Paragraph 4, where it is averred that upon

reviewing the original records of the validity holder Shri Dashrath

Ajay Gangavane, it is observed that sworn Affidavit regarding

genealogy was submitted before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee on 4th September 2017. Upon examining the genealogy, it

is noted that the great-grandfather of the validity holder, Shri

Dashrath Ajay Gangavane, is recorded as Shri Ladu Vishram

Gangavane. Also during the inquiry conducted by the Police Vigilance

Cell, the Petitioner's father provided a different name as Shri Ladu

Govind Gangavane for the great-great-grandfather. He submitted that

this has been taken into consideration by the Respondent No. 2 -

Scrutiny Committee. He has accordingly submitted that the

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, by giving due weightage to

the aforesaid fact, has arrived at the order invalidating the caste

claim of the Petitioner.

11. Having considered the submissions, as well as taking

5/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

note of the compilation of documents which have been produced

before this Court and the original School Register which has been

tendered by Mr. Krishna Tukaram Chavan, who is present in Court, it

appears that there is Entry 28 in the original School Register, which

the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee had overlooked, and

which Entry has been referred to in subsequent Entry 144 in the

School Register which was placed before the Respondent No. 2 -

Scrutiny Committee. In Entry 28, the paternal uncle of the Petitioner,

viz. Dashrath Ladu Gangavane's caste has been shown belonging to

Hindu Thakar caste, and from a plain reading of this Entry there is no

interpolation.

12. The Respondent - State has relied upon subsequent Entry

66 in respect of Dashrath Ladu Gangavane, contending that there is

interpolation in the caste Maratha Thakar which weighed heavily

with the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. However, the

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered

other relevant entries in the School Register which includes the said

Entry 28.

13. In the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No. 2, it is

6/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

contended that there is a different genealogy produced by the

Petitioner's father as against the genealogy produced by Dashrath

Ajay Gangavane before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee

which fact weighed with the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee

in the passing of the impugned Order.

14. By keeping the rights and contentions of the parties,

including the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in Reply

of Respondent No. 2 open, we consider it appropriate to remand the

matter back to the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee,

particularly in view of the relevant Extracts of the original School

15. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned Order

dated 9th September 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee.

16. The matter is remanded back for de novo hearing by

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, including considering the

aforementioned material which has been produced before this Court

viz. the relevant Extracts of the original School Record/Register in

7/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

their entirety. The de novo hearing and passing of decision shall be

concluded within a period of four weeks from uploading of this order.

17. The rights and contentions of the parties are expressly

kept open to be determined by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee in the de novo hearing as directed.

18. Till, the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee passes

its decision, the admission of the Petitioner in MET's Institute of

Management, Mumbai for Master's Course shall not be cancelled.

19. Further, in the event an adverse order is passed against

the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s admission in MET's Institute of

Management, Mumbai shall not be cancelled for a period of two

weeks from the communication of the decision.

20. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in these

terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. The Writ Petition No. 17457 of 2024, which has been

tagged along with the above Petition, has been wrongly tagged and is

8/9
15-wp-3-2025.doc

required to be placed before the appropriate bench. Accordingly, the

Registry shall de-tag this Writ Petition and place before appropriate

bench.

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

9/9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…