Bombay High Court
Ganesh So Santosh Koli Through his father Santosh So Yamanappa KoliversusThrough The Secretary, 1 Tribal Development Department
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s order and directed issuance of a validity certificate confirming the petitioner’s belonging to the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
Summary
The petitioner, a 17‑year‑old student, sought a validity certificate for the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe to secure admission in a technical institute. The Scrutiny Committee, after a vigilance inquiry, rejected his claim, relying mainly on a school record showing his grandfather’s caste as ‘Koli’ and dismissing his cousin‑grandfather’s entry of ‘Mahadev Koli’ for procedural reasons. The petitioner argued that the Committee ignored substantial documentary evidence and misapplied the affinity test, citing earlier judgments on Koli Mahadev’s historical inclusion in the ST list. The Court examined the school records, historical orders, and the vigilance report, finding the Committee’s reasons illogical and contrary to evidence, and held that the affinity test is not essential. Consequently, the Court quashed the Committee’s order and directed it to issue a validity certificate for the petitioner as a member of the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee correctly rejected the petitioner’s claim to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe status based on the documentary evidence presented.
- Whether the entry ‘Koli’ in the grandfather’s school record suffices to invalidate the claim.
- Whether the procedural reasons for discarding the cousin‑grandfather’s ‘Mahadev Koli’ entry are legally valid.
- Whether the affinity test is a mandatory requirement for establishing Scheduled Tribe status.
- Whether the order of the Scrutiny Committee should be quashed and a validity certificate issued.
Legislation cited
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 1976
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- Koli Mahadev
- tribe verification
- validity certificate
- Scrutiny Committee
- vigilance inquiry
- caste certificate
- affinity test
- constitutional order
Judgment
WP-3991-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3991 OF 2026
Ku. Ganesh S/o Santosh Koli
Age: 17 years (minor), Occu – Student,
Through his father
Shri. Santosh S/o Yamanappa Koli,
Age – 39 years, Occu – primary Teacher,
Address – At Post Mali Nagar (Maharshi Nagar),
Taluka – Malshiras,
Dist. Solapur. ...Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Secretary and Ors.
1) Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai – 325
2) Other Backwad Bahujan
welfare department.
Mantralaya Mumbai – 325
3) General administration department
Mantralaya Mumbai – 325
4) Social Justice and special Assistance
Department
Mantralaya Mumbai – 325.
2. Tribal Research and Training Institute
Pune, through its commissioner
28, queens garden, near old circuit
Camp, Pune – 411001.
3. Scheduled Tribe Certiicates Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Division, Pune
Kapil Towers C wing, 5th loor,
Sameer 1 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
near RTO oice,
Pune – 411001
4. National Institute of Technology
Karnataka Suratkal,
P.O. Sriniwasnagar, Manglore 575025
Union of India
5. Union of India
Department of Higher education
Through its secretary
and
National Testing Agency (NTA)
Through its Director general
First Floor, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING,
Okhla Industrial estate, new Delhi – 110020.
...Respondents.
——————
Appearance :
Ms. Vaishali Suryawanshi – Birajdar a/w Ms. Surekha H. Kamble, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents - State
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 20, 2026.
JUDGMENT : [PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
1. By consent of both the sides, heard inally at the admission stage.
2. Impugned in the Writ Petition is the order dated 13.08.2026
passed by Respondent No.3 – Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the
Sameer 2 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
Petitioner’s tribe claim towards “Koli Mahadev”. The Petitioner is a
Student and aspiring for admission in Respondent No.4 – Institute from
the Scheduled Tribe category. The Petitioner’s claim towards “Koli
Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe was referred for veriication by the
Educational Institution where he is taking education. In support of his
tribe claim, the Petitioner submitted the caste certiicate of himself, of
his father, entries in the school record of his cousin-grandfather, etc.
The Scrutiny Committee directed an inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The
Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry and submitted its report. The
Vigilance Cell collected the extract of entry in the school record of the
Petitioner’s grandfather showing his caste as “Koli”. Considering the
documents on record, the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned
order.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that,
the Committee has not considered the documentary evidence available
on record in its right perspective and only on the basis of one entry of
“Koli” in the school record of the Petitioner’s grandfather, invalidated
the Petitioner’s tribe claim. The observations made by the Scrutiny
Committee in the impugned order are contrary to the documents on
record. In support of her contentions, she relied on the decision in
Prabhu S/o Narayan Survase Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2004
Sameer 3 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
(4) ALL MR 815, wherein the historical aspects of the “Koli Mahadev”
tribe is considered. She submitted that, on the basis of the documents
on record, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and
the Petitioner is entitled for the validity certiicate for the “Koli
Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP appearing for the State and
the Scrutiny Committee that, an entry of “Koli” was found in the school
record of the Petitioner’s grandfather in the Vigilance Cell inquiry. The
Committee has rightly discarded the entry of “Koli Mahadev” in the
school record of the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather, as the same was
not found to be trustworthy. The cousin-grandfather had taken the
admission in the irst standard at the age of 10 years, though the
minimum age for admission to the irst standard was 6 years. She
submitted that, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly considered the
evidence on record and no fault can be found with the impugned order
and the Petition be dismissed.
5. The record was called from the Scrutiny Committee. Perusal of
the same goes to show that, the genealogy / family tree was submitted
by the Petitioner’s father. The same is reproduced below :
Sameer 4 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
Sameer 5 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
6. The following documents were submitted by the Petitioner in
support of his tribe claim.
i Aidavit of his father ;
ii The school leaving certiicate of the Petitioner ;
iii The college leaving certiicate of the Petitioner ;
iv The extract from the school record of the Petitioner ;
v The school leaving certiicate of the Petitioner’s father;
vi The caste certiicate of the Petitioner’s father ;
vii The death certiicate of the Petitioner’s grandfather ;
viii The school leaving certiicate of the Petitioner’s cousin
grandfather ;
ix The extract of the general register of the school
showing the name and caste of the cousin grandfather
of the Petitioner ;
x The 7/12 extract having the name of Petitioner’s father
and others ;
xi Aadhar Card of the Petitioner ;
xii The original caste certiicate of the Petitioner ;
7. The Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry and submitted its report.
The Vigilance Cell collected the extract of school entry of the
Petitioner’s grandfather dated 01.06.1951, wherein his caste is
mentioned as “Koli”. The Vigilance Cell also found the school extract of
the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather dated 09.06.1958, wherein his caste
is mentioned as “Mahadev Koli”. The observations made in the
impugned order goes to show that the tribe claim of the Petitioner is
invalidated on the ground that, the caste of the Petitioner’s grandfather
was mentioned in the school record as “Koli” and the entry in the school
Sameer 6 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
record of the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather was not found to be
credible. The Scrutiny Committee has given the following reasons to
discard the school entry of the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather :
a The Petitioner’s grandfather was admitted in the irst standard
at the age of 10 years ;
b There was one column seen in the extract prior to the column
of serial number ;
c The document was in two pages attached to each other ;
8. As regards the ground in respect of admission in the irst
standard at the age of 10 years is concerned, there is nothing to show
that, admission in the irst standard was not permitted or allowed at the
age of 10 years. It is needless to state that, the minimum age for
admission in the irst standard is 6 years. The said entry is of June –
1958. Thus, in the absence of any material to show that, no admission
was allowed at the age of 10 years, the said reason for rejecting the
tribe claim is illogical. As regards the ground that there was one more
column prior to the column of serial number, the coloured copy of the
school extract at Page No.29 of the record shows that, the said
observation of the Committee was erroneous. What can be seen by the
naked eye is that, the prior page of the extract is seen to have got
copied, which gives an impression that, there is one more column before
the column of serial number “1”. The said extract shows that, the said
aspect is not only against the entry of the Petitioner’s cousin-
Sameer 7 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
grandfather; the same is also seen against the other entries on the said
page. As regards the ground that, the two (02) pages appeared to be
joined, the said extract clearly goes to show that, it is a single chart
spread over two (02) pages of the school register. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be said that, two diferent pages were joined. Even
by the naked eye, one can make out that, it is a complete chart having
various columns providing details in respect of the students of the said
school. The two pages of the register makes the complete chart. The
said reasoning given by the Committee in discarding the entry of the
Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather is unacceptable.
09. Undisputedly, the entry in respect of the Petitioner’s grandfather
– Yamanappa and the Petitioner’s cousin grandfather – Guruappa are
from the same school, i.e. Zilla Parishad, Primary School, Waradfarm,
Taluka North Solapur, District – Solapur. The same is evident from the
observations made in the impugned order. The same is reproduced
below :
'kky; pkSd'kh & ft- i- izkFk-'kkGk okjnQkeZ] rk- mRrj lksykiwj] ft- lksykiwj
cqd jft- fo|kF;kZaps tUe nk[ky mesnokjk'kh
vØ tkr
ua- ua- uko fnukad fnukad ukrs
;euIik f’koIik
1 2 176 dksGh 12@5@1941 1@6@1951 vktksck
dksGh
xqjIik f’koIik egknso pqyr
2 2 177 2@6@1948 9@6@1958
dksGh dksGh vktksck
Sameer 8 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
10. It is not the case that, the entry in respect of the Petitioner’s
grandfather showing his caste as “Koli”, was made prior to the
Presidential Notiication / Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Both the entries, i.e. of the Petitioner’s grandfather and the Petitioner’s
cousin-grandfather being post-constitution era, have the same
evidentiary value and stand on the same footing. Had it been the case
that, the entry of the Petitioner’s grandfather was of pre-Constitution
era, the situation would have been diferent. There is no inding by the
Scrutiny Committee that, the caste entry of “Koli Mahadev” in the
school extract of the Petitioner’s cousin- grandfather was tampered.
There is no dispute that, Yamanappa, i.e. Petitioner’s grandfather and
Guruappa, the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather, were real brothers and
the papers goes to show that, they studied in the same school in
Solapur District. Perusal of the aforesaid Judgment relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the Petitioner goes to show that, it was the matter
in respect of a tribe claim towards the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.
This Court considered the historical background in respect of inclusion
of “Koli Mahadev” in the Scheduled Tribes Order. It would not be out of
place to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the said Judgment ;
“8. Presidential notiication, notifying the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950, in so far as the State of Bombay is concerned,
included amongst the Scheduled Tribes Koli Dhor and Koli Mahadev. At
the relevant time, the ive districts, now in Marathwada, were not a
part of the Bombay State but were part of the State of Hyderabad.
There was no inclusion of the tribe Koli Mahadeo among the Scheduled
Sameer 9 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
Tribes notiied for the State of Hyderabad. Thereafter even under the
amendment to the Constitution (Scheduled) Tribes Order, 1950, the
position remained as under :
Mahadeo Koli was declared Scheduled Tribe in the Bombay Province as
early as 1933. For the State of Bombay, under item 12 were included
Koli Dhor, Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha. Then under item 3(a) in certain
talukas in Ahmednagar, Kolaba, Nashik, Poona and Thana, Koli
Mahadev or Dongar were also notiied as Scheduled Tribes.
Then came the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Act, 1976. Under this, in so far as the State of
Maharashtra is concerned, under item No.28 were included Koli, Dhor,
Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha and under item No.29, Koli Mahadeo,
Dongar Koli, and at item no.30 were Koli Malhar, for the entire State.
In the erstwhile State of Hyderabad there was an enactment, known as
Tribal Areas Regulation, 1359 Fasli under which the 'Tribe' was deined
to mean Bhils, Chenchus, Gonds, Hill Reddies, Kolams Koyas, Naikpods,
Pardans, Totis. Thus, in erstwhile State, there was no reference to either
Mahadeo Kolis or Kolis as Scheduled Tribe except as an agricultural
community wherein it was referred to as Kolis. The Backward Classes
Commission had however suggested inclusion of Koli as Scheduled Tribe
in the State of Hyderabad. This was never given efect to by any speciic
Presidential order or Legislation.
The ive districts, now eight, of Marathawada were earlier forming part
of erstwhile State of Hyderabad. When then Backward Classes
Commission submitted its report, one of its recommendations, for the
State of Hyderabad, was to include Koli, as a Scheduled Tribe. In so far
as State of Hyderabad is concerned, we have some material from the
book "The Castes and Tribes of H.E.H. The Nizam's Dominions" by Syed
Siraj Ul Hassan, published in the year 1920 (Bombay, The Tata Press).
In respect of Kolis, internal structure is described as under :
Mahadev Kolis derive their name from the god Mahadeo and they have
24 exogamous septs (sects), each of which is further divided into a
number of surnames or sub-sections. The Kolis observe the simple rule
of exogamy that a man may not marry outside the sub-tribe or inside
the sept (sect) to which he belongs. In so far as religion is concerned, it
is set out that their patron deity is Mahadeo, their household worship,
in which priests take no part, is addressed to Bhairoba (Sonari,
Ahmednagar), Devi of Tuljapur (Nizam's territory) and Khandoba of
Jejuri (Pune). The dead are buried in a lying posture, with the face
upwards and the head pointing to the north.
In the Encyclopedic Proile of Indian Tribes, by Sachchidananda and R. R.
Prasad, in an article written by Navinchandra Jain and Robin D.
Sameer 10 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
Tribhuwan it is mentioned that the Mahadeo Kolis are one of the major
tribes of western Maharashtra. It is predominantly found in ive districts
namely Nashik, Pune, Ahmednagar, Thane and Raigad.
The major deities of Mahadeo Kolis are goddess Bhavani, and gods
Kaloba and Bhairoba, respectively. The Mahadeo Kolis bury their dead
and head points towards the south. Irrespective of the changes which
are taking place in their life style, the Mahadeo Kolis still hold
superstitious beliefs about life, death, etc. The traditional village
panchayat of the Mahadeo Kolis is known as "Gaon Baithak".
In the Census of India, 1941, Vol.XXI HEH Nizam's Dominion, published
in 1945, there is Appendix I which is an essay by Christoph Von Furer
Haimendrof Ph.D. on "Tribal Populations of Hyderabad Yesterday and
Today", which states that Kolis in Hyderabad State are known and
recognised as Scheduled Tribe and the "Kolis" in erstwhile Hyderabad
State on reorganisation of State, will continue as Scheduled Tribe. This
factually seems not to be correct.
***
11. The conclusions that must follow from the discussion are as under :-
(a) The Committee, considering the claim of a candidate, is the only fact
inding Committee. Therefore, great care must be taken in absence of
any appeal, to consider and appreciate all the evidence, documentary or
by way of aidavit or oral which has been produced.
(b) As a fact inding Committee and, a quasi judicial authority, deciding
the status of the party and from which order no appeal lies, it must
record reasons for rejecting the evidence produced, documentary or
oral. The need for recording reasons is because a High Court examining
the order in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 would be in a position to know whether correct tests have been
applied and whether the evidence placed before the Committee has
been considered.
(c) Merely because an entry as, for instance, Koli, is recorded in the
School records, by itself, cannot result in rejecting the claim of a
candidate. This is more so in the ive districts, now eight districts, of
Marathwada, which were earlier forming part of the erstwhile State of
Hyderabad and who admittedly are not in the profession of ishing as
traditional occupation nor is Marathwada a coastal belt. The
Committee, while considering the claims of Scheduled Tribe candidates,
coming from this area, will have to consider the other material placed
before it and not merely proceed on the footing that, because Koli is
shown in the school certiicates or, some other document, all other
evidence must be rejected. The Committee must consider the
documentary evidence, coupled with the Vigilance Report and other
Sameer 11 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
evidence of tribal traits and characteristics, to arrive at a conclusion
that the petitioner belongs to the tribe, he/she claims to being. No
doubt, the burden will be more on the candidate where such entry is
recorded unlike in a case, no such documentary evidence is recorded. As
has been held in the case of Rajesh s/o. Yadavrao Sankaple (supra), Kolis
in Marathawada did not become Mahadeo Kolis by the Presidential
Order of 1976. However, it would still be open to persons claiming to be
belonging to Mahadeo Kolis to establish that they are not isherman
and establish by evidence their tribe characteristics as Mahadeo Kolis.
(d) In so far as documentary evidence is concerned, mere absence of the
records of the parents of the candidate cannot be held against a
claimant. The very fact that the tribe/caste is notiied, as S.C./S.T. is
based on the historical fact that the tribe/cast is backward. In these
circumstances, the mere absence of documentary evidence cannot be
held against a claimant. In those cases the report of the Vigilance
Oicer and of the Research Oicer, about the tribal traits and
characteristics and anthropological studies, must decide the issue based
on the evidence produced.
(e) We have earlier observed that the orders are stereotyped. This needs
correction at the hands of the Committee. In respect of the evidence
pertaining to traits, characteristics, anthropological studies, there must
be a speciic proforma in respect of each tribe and, may be, even caste.
A claimant should be asked questions in respect of his tribe claim and
not pertaining generally to all tribes. It is possible that some traits will
be common but, at the same time, there will be other traits which may
be distinct to distinguish one tribe from the another. The praforma for
veriication of tribe claim, must include the speciic traits of each tribe.
(f) In the absence of documentary evidence, the duty of the Committee
will be to permit the candidate to lead evidence of tribal traits and
characteristics, by answering the questionnaire prepared in respect of
his tribe and also allow any evidence on aidavit to be led on which the
candidate can be questioned. That material including in cases where
there are documents should be made available to the Vigilance Oicer
who will verify the same by following the procedure laid down in
judgment of the Apex Court referred to earlier to ind out the
authenticity or genuiness of the claim.
(g) The report of the Vigilance Oicer along with any documents the
Oicer may collect must be given to the candidate, to enable him to
give his say if the report is adverse, or if the Committee is of the prima
facie opinion, that the report has to be rejected. The reply if any should
be considered whilst passing order in the claim of the candidate. ”
Sameer 12 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
11. Coming to the case at hand, perusal of the Vigilance Cell report
goes to show that, the collection of honey and forest product was the
traditional occupation of the Petitioner’s family. The Vigilance Cell
report does not indicate that, ishing was their traditional occupation.
Undisputedly, the place where the Petitioner’s grandfather and cousin-
grandfather studied is not in coastal belt or coastal region. The
Vigilance Cell report further indicates that, the “Koli Mahadev” tribe was
earlier residing in hilly regions. The other reason for invalidation of the
Petitioner’s tribe claim is that, he failed to establish ainity towards the
“Koli Mahadev” tribe. The Hon’ble Supreme of India, in Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others; AIR 2023 SC 1657, held that, the ainity test
is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in
the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in
every case.
12. In view of the above discussion, which is based on the record of
the Scrutiny Committee, the impugned order cannot be allowed to
sustain. The Scrutiny Committee has discarded the entry in the school
record of the Petitioner’s cousin-grandfather, which supports the
Petitioner’s tribe claim, for unacceptable reasons. Under the facts and
circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside,
Sameer 13 of 14
WP-3991-2026.doc
and the Scrutiny Committee is required to be directed to issue a validity
certiicate in favour of the Petitioner as belonging to the “Koli
Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
[II] The impugned order dated 13.08.2026 passed by Respondent
No.3 – Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
[III] The Respondent No.3 – Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a
validity certiicate to the Petitioner towards the “Koli Mahadev”
Scheduled Tribe, within a period of one (01) week.
[IV] The record be returned to the learned AGP.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sameer 14 of 14
Checking your session…