DNYANADA POSHETTI GONELWAR THROUGH FATHER POSHETTI J GONELWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

                                  (1)                 WP-4340-2026


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   WRIT PETITION NO.4340 OF 2026

Ku. Dnyanada Poshetti Gonelwar
Age: 17 years, Occu: Student
Through its Natural Guardian father
Poshetti Jayaram Gonelwar
Age: 43 years, Occu; Service
At post Kundalwadi Tal. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded.                                      ...PETITIONER
     VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Kinwat-1, Division Aurangabad,
Through its Member Secretary.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Biloli, Nanded, Maharashtra.                       ...RESPONDENTS
………………………………………………………………………………….
Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat i/by Mr. S. G. Jayewar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State.
………………………………………………………………………………….
                   CORAM                 : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                          AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                   RESERVED ON           : 24th JULY 2026.
                   PRONOUNCED ON         : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026.
                                      (2)                   WP-4340-2026


ORDER :- [PER:- KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

1.       Heard Mr. Thorat i/by Mr. Jayewar, the learned Advocate for the

petitioner, and Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to

3/State. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final

disposal at the stage of admission.

2.       By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

Judgment and Order dated 01/04/2026 passed by the Respondent

No.2/the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Kinwat-1,

Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”),

thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to

“Mannervarlu”      Scheduled    Tribe       and   seeking   a   direction   to

Respondent/Committee not to take any coercive action against the

petitioner.

3.       Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the Scrutiny

Committee, which invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner and

Respondent No.3 is the Sub-Divisional Officer, who issued the tribe

certificate in favour of petitioner as a person belonging to Scheduled

Tribe.
                                    (3)                  WP-4340-2026


4.    It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe

category. In support of her claim, she submitted documents before the

Committee. Though there are validity certificates issued in favour of

near blood relatives of the petitioner, still the Respondent/Committee

has wrongly decided her claim. Whereas in its judgment, the

Respondent/Committee has observed that the petitioner failed to prove

her caste status. The entries in the caste column of school records, most

of the relatives/blood relatives of the petitioner, are fabricated by adding

letter “लू” where the caste was originally shown as “मनेरवार”. It is further

held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the affinity test, genealogy etc.

and thereafter the Respondent/Committee rejected the claim.


5.    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 01/04/2026

passed by the Respondent/Committee, the petitioner approached before

this Court.


6.    Mr. Thorat, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently

argued that the near relatives of the petitioner namely, Vijay Gonelwar,

Sanjay Gonelwar and Laxman Gonelwar have received validity
                                    (4)                 WP-4340-2026


certificates. Inspite    of this position, the Respondent/Committee

discarded that evidence. The Respondent/Committee erred in not

considering their validity certificates properly. He submits that in the

case of Vijay Rajenna Gonelwar, this High Court has passed a judgment

reported in [2025 (6) Mh.L.J. 581] wherein his writ petition came to be

allowed,     directing   the   Respondent/Committee    to   issue   validity

certificate. Still, the Respondent/Committee did not rely upon the said

judgment. In the case of petitioner’s father, i.e. Poshetti Jayram Golewar,

the caste is shown in the school records as “ मन्नेरवारलू”. His validity

certificate was issued by the Committee without any condition. There is

already validity granted. The Vigilance Cell has conducted the common

inquiry for Sanjay, Vijay and Laxman. He thus prayed that the petition

deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned

order.


7.       Mr. Shinde, the learned AGP, on the other hand, vehemently

opposed the petition. He points out the discussion and reasoning

recorded by the Respondent/Committee in its judgment. He submits that
                                     (5)                  WP-4340-2026


in the cases of Shankar Babanna Gonelwar and Hanmant Tukaram

Gonelwar, cousin uncles who are shown in genealogy, the caste entries in

their school records are shown as “ मन्नेरवारलू”. However, in the case of

Shankar Gonelwar, the word “लू” is added in different handwriting. So

far as school record of Hanmant Gonelwar is concerned, the entry was

given only on the basis of transfer certificate, and therefore those entries

are not rightly considered. One Rajaram Gonelwar also happen to be in

relation to the petitioner. In his sale-deed, he clearly mentioned that he

does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. This Rajaram is found in the

genealogy. So far as Laxman Gonelwar, a cousin brother is concerned,

his caste in the school records is shown to be " बुरुड”. Similarly, the school

records of another cousin brother of petitioner namely, Sanjiv Poshetti is

shown to be “Padmashali” in Zilla Parishad Primary School Kundalwadi,

Tal. Biloli Dist. Nanded. He thus submits that the petitioner’s claim is

rightly rejected by the Respondent/Committee. This Court had also

called for original record in respect of petitioner from the office of the

Respondent/Committee.
                                    (6)                WP-4340-2026


8.    We have heard the parties at length. Perused the petition papers

and records produced by the Respondent/Committee during the course

of arguments. It is seen from the record of Zilla Parishad School

Kundalwadi that the caste of Sanjiv Gonelwar is shown to be

“Padmashali”. The said certificate is certified by the Headmaster of the

said school. In the case of Shankar Bapanna Gonelwar, the Headmaster

of the said school has certified the entry with endorsement in the caste

column that, the original word appears to be "मनेरवार" wherein word “न”

is inserted after the word “म”and word “लू” is inserted after the word

“र”. This entry is found to be false and fabricated.


9.    So far as entry in the school records of Shankar is concerned, the

copy of extract of the register of school admission is shown that in the

caste column, the original word is “मनेरवार” which appearing to have

been made as “मन्नेरवारलू”.


10.   In the case of Laxman Poshetti Gonelwar, the copy of extract from

register of school namely, Zilla Parishad Primary School certified by the

Headmaster that in the said extract, caste of Laxman Gonelwar is shown
                                   (7)                 WP-4340-2026


to be "बुरुड”. So far as sale-deed No.1640/2003 executed by Rajaram

s/o. Rajanna Gonelwar is dated 28/04/2003, there is a clear mention

that he does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. This is required as there is

bar against selling of land by a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe to

person who is not a Scheduled Tribe person. The said bar is under

Section 36 of the Maharashtra Restoration of lands to Scheduled Tribe

Act. There is also provision wherein the land of person belonging to

Scheduled Tribe is sold, then he can make an application for restoration

of the land under the said Act. Thus, all the entries which are discussed

above, are the contra entries. There is no satisfactory answer as to why

these entries are shown as Mannerwar, Burud, Padmashali etc. It is clear

that all the entries, including the entry of father, showing the caste as

Mannerwarlu are after 1982. From the entries in the caste column of

cousins namely Laxman Gonelwar and Sanjiv Gonelwar, caste is shown

as Burud and Padmashali, respectively in the school records.


11.   Learned Advocate for the petitioner, during the course of

arguments, relied upon the judgment in the case of Sayanna Vs. State of
                                   (8)                 WP-4340-2026


Maharashtra and Ors.1 wherein this Court has distinguished the present

case on the case of Sayanna (supra). In that case, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that when the entries appear to have been manipulated or

fabricated that itself is not sufficient to deny the claim. When it is not

shown that the claimant himself fabricated or manipulated the entry, as

the record is in possession of the school, the claim cannot be rejected on

that ground alone.


12.    This Court also has considered the case of Sayanna (supra) in the

judgment of this Court in Shubham Sharad Mahandule Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors.2. In that case, there was no any other evidence or

the expert opinion to show that there is overwriting or manipulation in

the entry.

13.    This Court considered Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000,

which reads as under:
1 2009 (10) SCC 268
2 WP/4704/2023 (Aurangabad)
                                         (9)                     WP-4340-2026


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


14.    It is thus clear that when there is burden on the person claiming to

be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe, he has to give unimpeachable

evidence. It is not that the burden is on the committee to show that the

said entry is fabricated, manipulated etc. by the claimant or on his

behalf. With respect to the case of Sayanna (supra), this Court finds that

this case would not behind any help to the petitioner. In the present case

there are various contra entries. In the case of Sayanna (supra) the

Hon’ble Apex Court specifically observed that it was only an opinion of

the vigilance committee members that entry was manipulated. There

was no any other material to show that the entry was in fact

manipulated. In the present case, the committee has specifically

discussed about the entry. It is only upon that the committee has

concluded that the entry is manipulated.
                                    ( 10 )               WP-4340-2026


15.   In the present case, there is also copy of the entries which are

certified by the Headmaster of the school in the record clearly stated

that "मन्नेरवारलू" is made by adding slanting line on “ न” alphabet and “लू”

is added after letter “र".

16.   A further factor from the records which is undisputed is that in the

sale-deed dated 28/04/2003, it is clearly written that the vendor does

not belong to Scheduled Tribe. The document is executed before the

Registrar and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

17.   So far as a case of Vijay Rajenna Gonelwar (supra) is concerned,

this Court had granted validity, but the same is conditional. The

judgment also clearly observes that the said certificate shall be subject to

outcome of the re-verification of the caste validity of his blood relative.

There is a clear stipulation that petitioners shall not claim any equity. It

is further recorded that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with

respondent No.2/Committee as and when caste scrutiny committee

reopens their caste claim. This order clearly shows that even this Court

though granted validity has granted only in view of earlier validity. The

said validity is not granted unequivocal terms.
                                         ( 11 )              WP-4340-2026


18.          Thus, considering contra entries in the records, the sale-deed and

the fact that the word “ मन्नेरवारलू” is a result of manipulated overwriting,

this Court finds that the Committee has rightly appreciated all these

facts. No interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Petition

therefore stands dismissed.



[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                           [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE