AMEY UMESH JADHAV THR. HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN UMESH VISHNU JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:7709-DB

                                                                      911-WP-3952-2026.doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3952 OF 2026

               Amey Umesh Jadhav                                       ...Petitioner
               Through his Natural Guardian and Father,
               Umesh Vishnu Jadhav
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra And Others                     ...Respondents

                                            ——————
               Mr. Onkar Ghatage a/w Mr. Jitendra Arun More, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan a/w Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, Ms. Ankita Chindge
               for Respondent No.3 (State CET Cell).
               Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-
               State.
                                               ——————
                                                 Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                             NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                                 Date      : AUGUST 18, 2026

               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner impugns the decision of

               Respondent No. 2 Committee dated 13 th August, 2026 invalidating the

               tribe claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the “Thakar” Scheduled

               Tribe. The Petitioner is studying in engineering course and has

               submitted the proposal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee along with an

               affidavit showing the genealogy of his family as well as documentary

               evidence since 1912 showing his caste status as “Thakar”.


               Jamadar SL                         1 of 4
                                                          911-WP-3952-2026.doc


2.      After conducting the vigilance enquiry, the vigilance cell report

dated 15th April, 2026 was served upon the Petitioner, which found the

documents to be genuine, showing the caste status as “Thakar” since

1912.

3.      The Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by

considering that the documents of the paternal relatives of the

Petitioner reflected the caste as Hindu Maratha, Maratha and Maratha

Thakur.

4.      Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn attention

of this Court to the validity certificate granted to his father's first cousin

Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav. He submits that as the validity has been granted

to his paternal uncle, as per the settled position in law, his claim could

not have been invalidated. He would further point out that the Scrutiny

Committee has dealt with the validity certificate of his uncle Mahesh

Vishnu Jadhav; however, no steps have been taken for cancellation of

the certificate and no show-cause notice has been issued. He submits

that as the caste claim of his uncle has been validated and is in

subsistence, the Scrutiny Committee could not have rejected the

Petitioner's application.


5.      Learned AGP would point out the findings of the Scrutiny

Committee on the documents which reflected the caste of the


Jamadar SL                         2 of 4
                                                                               911-WP-3952-2026.doc


Petitioner's relatives as Hindu Maratha, Maratha and Maratha Thakur.

He submits that the Scrutiny Committee also considered the validity

certificate of the Petitioner's uncle Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav. Upon a

query by this Court, on instructions, he would submit that as of date no

show-cause notice has been issued to Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav.

6.        Considering that the validity certificate has been issued to the

Petitioner's paternal uncle and there is no dispute as far as the

genealogy is concerned and no show-cause notice as of date has been

issued to the Petitioner's uncle in respect of the validity certificate

which was granted on 11th March, 2004, the certificate cannot be

brushed aside. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to caste validity

certificate.

7.        Learned AGP has rightly pointed out the decision of this Court in

the case of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. State of Maharashtra and

others1, where the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the Committee

is not prevented from proceeding in accordance with law against the

relative whose certificate of validity is under question and in the event

that the certificate is invalidated, all the consequences shall be suffered

by the Petitioner as well. We are also inclined to adopt the same course.

8.        In light of the above discussion, the Petition is allowed.


1    WP No.5611 of 2018 decided on 27th July, 2018 by the Bombay High Court.



Jamadar SL                                         3 of 4
                                                           911-WP-3952-2026.doc


9.       The impugned order dated 13th August, 2026 is quashed and set

aside.

10.      The validity certificate be issued to the Petitioner expeditiously

and in any event within a period of one week.

11.      Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to act on the authenticated

copy of this order and not to cancel the admission of the Petitioner.

12.      It is clarified that this order does not prevent the Committee from

proceeding against Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav in accordance with law and in

the event, the claim of Mahesh Vishnu Jadhav is invalidated, the

Petitioner will be bound to suffer the consequences as well.

13.      The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                      [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Jamadar SL                         4 of 4