ARYAN ABHIJIT RAJPUT (MINOR) THR. LEGAL GUARDIAN ABHIJIT MAGANLAL RAJPUTversusDISTRICT CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, KOLHAPUR AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8790-DB

                                                                             WP-4399-2026.doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.4399 OF 2026
               Aryan Abhijit Rajput
               Since Minor through his legal guardian
               and father Abhijit Maganlal Rajput,
               Age 45 years, residing at Plot No.42,
               “Laxmisparup” Sharda Society, Kupwad Road,
               Sangli, District Sangli - 416416                           ...Petitioner.

                          VERSUS
               1.       District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
                        District Kolhapur
                        Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajeek Nyaya,
                        Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Vichare Mala, Kolhapur,
                        PIN 416 003
               2.       Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI)
                        H.R. Mahajani Road, Matunga (East),
                        Mumbai – 400 019

               3.       State Common Entrance Test Cell,
                        Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
                        having its office at 8th Floor,
                        New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nair Marg,
                        Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
               4.       State of Maharashtra
                        Through its Department of Technical Education
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.                 ...Respondents.
                                              ——————
               Appearance :
               Mr. P. D. Dalvi a/w Tejas Shelake & Ms. Sonal Nalawade, Advocate for the
               Petitioner
               Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 – State
               Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan a/w Mr. Abhang M. Suryawanshi a/w Ms. Ankita Chindage,
               Advocate for Respondent No.3 (CET Cell)
                                               ——————


               Sameer                             1 of 9
                                                             WP-4399-2026.doc


                                 Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                            Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                 Reserved on : 8th September, 2026.
                                 Pronounced on : 11th September, 2026.

FINAL ORDER : [PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]


1.       By consent of both the sides, heard finally at the admission stage.


2.       By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the

order dated 04.09.2026, passed by Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny

Committee, invalidating his caste claim towards “Rajput Bhamta –

Vimukt Jati (A)” and cancelling his caste certificate issued by the

Competent Authority as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”.


3.       The Petitioner is the student. The Competent Authority had

issued a caste certificate dated 26.05.2026 to the Petitioner as

belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”. The educational

institution when the Petitioner was studying, submitted his caste

certificate for verification to Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee.

The Petitioner submitted necessary documents in support of his caste

claim, including validity certificates issued by the Scrutiny Committee in

favour of his father and grandfather. As the Petitioner wanted to pursue

higher education with Respondent No.2 – Institute, he applied to

Respondent No.2 – Cell for admission from the reserved quota as

belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati” (A). As the claim of the


Sameer                             2 of 9
                                                            WP-4399-2026.doc


Petitioner was pending with Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee and

not decided, initially the prayer in the petition was to direct Respondent

No.1 – Scrutiny Committee to decide his claim on or before 05.09.2026,

as the validity certificate was required to be submitted on or before

07.09.2026 for securing admission in the first-year course of Electronics

and Telecommunication. This Court, by order dated 03.09.2026, directed

Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee to consider the claim of the

Petitioner without seeking any further documents, as the Petitioner’s

father and grandfather were having validity certificates, by 04.09.2026

and if found to be in order, to issue the validity certificate by 04:30 p.m.

on 04.09.2026. By the impugned order, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the Petitioner’s claim towards “Rajput Bhamta –

Vimukt Jati (A)”.


4.       It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that,

though the Petitioner’s grandfather and father are having the validity

certificates issued by the Scrutiny Committee as belonging to “Rajput

Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”, and copies of the said validities were

submitted by Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee, the said validities

are discarded. He further submitted that, the State Government in the

Social Justice Department, issued the Government Resolution dated

22.08.2007 to the effect that, while considering the caste / tribe claims,



Sameer                            3 of 9
                                                          WP-4399-2026.doc


if the Committee finds that, any family member in blood relation have

the validity certificates issued by the appropriate authority, the same

shall be considered and the Applicant be issued with the validity

certificates without asking for any other document, within a period of

one (01) month. He submitted that, on the basis of the validities in

favour of the Petitioner’s grandfather and father, the Petitioner is

entitled for the validity certificate to the “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati

(A)” as per the settled position in law. He further submitted that, the

validity certificate be made co-terminus with the validity certificates of

the grandfather and father of the Petitioner.


5.       The Petition is opposed by the learned AGP appearing for

Respondent Nos.1 and 4. He submits that, the order impugned passed

by Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee shows consideration of the

validity certificates of the Petitioner’s grandfather and father, and

noted that, no document prior to 21.11.1961 was seen in the files of the

Petitioner’s grandfather and father showing the caste as “Rajput

Bhamta”. It further noted that, there are sale deeds of 1941 and 1948,

wherein the caste was mentioned as “Pardeshi”, and in the school

leaving certificate of great-grandfather of the Petitioner, the caste was

mentioned as “Rajput”. The Committee has issued show-cause notices

to the Petitioner’s grandfather and father, and therefore, the said two



Sameer                           4 of 9
                                                          WP-4399-2026.doc


(02) validities were not sufficient to validate the Petitioner’s claim. He

further submitted that, by notification dated 22.07.2026, the State

Government amended the provisions 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

and conferred the powers of Review to the Scrutiny Committee. He

submitted that, as the Petitioner failed to prove his claim towards

“Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny

Committee has rightly passed the impugned order and the Petition be

dismissed.


6.       We have perused the record of Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny

Committee made available by the learned AGP. The genealogy

submitted by the Petitioner before the Committee shows that, Abhijeet

Maganlal Rajput was his father, Maganlal Surupsingha Rajput was his

grandfather, and Surupsingha Aapsingha Rajput was his great-

grandfather. There is no dispute in respect of the said genealogy. The

Petitioner primarily relied on the validity certificates dated 01.06.2008

issued by the Scrutiny Committee in the name of grandfather and father

of the Petitioner as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”.

There is no denial that, the Scrutiny Committee had issued the said



Sameer                           5 of 9
                                                         WP-4399-2026.doc


validity certificates. The impugned order goes to show that, the said

validities are discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that,

no document prior to the deemed date, i.e. 21.11.1961, showing the

caste as “Rajput Bhamta” was found in the files of the said validity

holders. It further observed that, in the sale deeds of the year – 1941

and 1948, and in the school leaving certificate of great- grandfather of

the Petitioner, the caste was mentioned as “Rajput” and “Rajput” caste

comes in the Other Backward Class. It further observed that, it appears

that, the validity holders misled the Scrutiny Committee at the time of

issuing the validity certificates. It is further observed that,   in the

impugned order, the validity holders possessed caste certificates

showing as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta”, which were issued from the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj, whereas they were originally residents of

Taluka – Shirod. The order impugned further goes to show that, the

Committee decided to reopen the cases of the said validity holders, i.e.

the grandfather and father of the Petitioner, and show-cause notices

were issued to them.


7.       Perusal of the Government Notification dated 22.07.2026 shows

that, by the Amendment Act of 2006, the Scrutiny Committee is

conferred with the powers of Review. Perusal of the aforesaid

Government Resolution dated 22.08.2007 shows that, the Scrutiny



Sameer                          6 of 9
                                                           WP-4399-2026.doc


Committee was expected to issue a validity certificate to a candidate if

family members with blood relations are issued the validity certificates,

without asking any other documents. The fact remains that, as on date,

the Petitioner’s grandfather and father are having validity certificates as

belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”. This is the situation

that, the grandfather and father of the Petitioner belong to “Rajput

Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)” and the Petitioner does not belong to the said

caste. As there is no dispute in respect of the relationship between the

Petitioner and two (02) validity holders, i.e. grandfather and father, the

Petitioner cannot be deprived of a validity certificate towards the same

caste.


8.       Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra;

2018 SCC Online Bom 10363, which was on similar facts. In the said

case, the Petitioner had relied on the validity certificates issued to her

uncle and cousin uncle, and the Scrutiny Committee discarded the same,

as show-cause notices were issued to the validity holders on the ground

that, it was vitiated by fraud or suppression of material facts. This Court

observed that, If it is a serious allegation and which is termed as fraud,

then, it should have been taken to its logical end and mere issuance of a

show cause notice in the present case would not suffice for there were



Sameer                           7 of 9
                                                              WP-4399-2026.doc


two certificates of validity relied upon. This Court set aside the order of

invalidation of the caste claim and made issuance of a validity certificate

to the Petitioner, subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated

against the validity holders.


9.         In view of the undisputed factual aspects of the matter and in

light of the above discussion, we adopt the same course of action as was

adopted in the above-referred decision in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra).

The order impugned is, therefore, liable to be set aside, with the

direction to Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee to issue a validity

certificate to the Petitioner as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta – Vimukt

Jati (A)”, which shall be co-terminus or subject to, the validity

certificates issued to the grandfather and father of the Petitioner. In

another words, the validity certificate of the Petitioner shall be subject

to the outcome of the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 –

Scrutiny Committee in the matters of the validity certificates of the

grandfather and the father of the Petitioner. Hence, the following

order:

                                       ORDER

     [I]   The impugned order dated 04.09.2026 passed by Respondent

           No.1 – Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the Petitioner

           is quashed and set aside.



Sameer                                 8 of 9
                                                            WP-4399-2026.doc


  [II] The Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a

         validity certificate to the Petitioner as belonging to “Rajput

         Bhamta – Vimukt Jati (A)”, within a period of one (01) week, which

         shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated by

         Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee in the matters of the

         validity certificates of the grandfather and the father of the

         Petitioner.

  [III] In view of the order dated 04.09.2026, whereby the period to

         submit the caste validity certificate is extended by three (03)

         months pursuant to the Government Circular dated 04.09.2026,

         no directions in respect of Prayer Clauses (b) and (c) are

         warranted.

  [IV] Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.




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




Sameer                             9 of 9