RAJIV VITHALRAO PALEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40211-DB




                                                          (1)                         WP-5349-2025




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 5349 OF 2025

           Rajiv s/o. Vithalrao Palekar
           Age: 52 years, Occu: Service
           R/o. Lecturer Colony, Vasant Nagar,
           Dist. Nanded.                                                           ...Petitioner
                   VERSUS
           1. The State of Maharashtra
           Through it Secretary,
           Tribal Development Department,
           Mantralaya Mumbai.
           2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
           Verification Committee Kinwat
           Head Quarter at Chh. Sambhajinagar,
           Through its Dy. Director (R.),
           Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.

           3. The Chief Post Master Generla,
           Indian Post, Maharashtra Circle,
           2nd Floor, GPO building Mumbai-1.
           4. The Post Master General,
           Indian Post, Aurangabad Region,
           Chavani, Chh. Sambhajinagar
           Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.

           5. The Superintendent of Post,
           Post Office Nanded, Dist. Nanded.                                       ...Respondents
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
             Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
             Mr. Ravi R. Bangar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  (2)                  WP-5349-2025




                      CORAM              : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                           AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                      RESERVED ON        : 18th JULY 2026.
                      PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.

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


1.    Heard Mr. Vibhute, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner,

Mr. Wani, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State, and

Mr. Bangar, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The

petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties at the

stage of admission.


2.    The present petition arises out of a Judgment and Order dated

04/04/2005 passed by the Respondent No.2/the Scheduled Tribe

Certificate   Verification Committee Kinwat,     Headquarter at Chh.

Sambhajinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “ Committee”), thereby

cancelling the tribe validity certificate dated 05/03/2007 and tribe

certificate dated 31/07/1987 issued in favour of the petitioner. Further,

action is directed against the petitioner under Sections 10 and 11 of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
                                   (3)                  WP-5349-2025




Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000

(for short “the Act of 2000”) (Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001).


3.   The facts in short, giving rise to the present petition, are that, the

petitioner claims to be a person belonging to Mannervarlu (27), a

Scheduled Tribe category. On the strength of tribe certificate, he was

appointed to the post of Postal Assistant in Indian Post Department in

the year 1987. Since he was appointed against the post reserved for a

person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, Respondent No. 5/the

Superintendent of Post, Nanded, forwarded the tribe claim verification

proposal on 31/01/2006 to Respondent No.2/Committee, Aurangabad.

The tribe claim of the petitioner was validated by the Committee by its

judgment and order dated 05/03/2007. One cousin brother of the

petitioner, namely, Amol Gyanoba Palekar, also obtained a validity

certificate from Nashik Committee on 20/05/1998. Thereafter, the

Aurangabad Committee validated the tribe claims of other cousin

brothers of the petitioner, namely, Gyanoba Palekar, Rajaram Kandhare,

Balaji Palekar, Namdev Kandhare and cousin sister, namely, Anita
                                    (4)                WP-5349-2025




Kandhare. The real brother Sanjay’s claim was also validated on

05/03/2007.


4.    One Nishikant Rajaram Kandhare appeared in MHT-CET-2018,

who happens to be a cousin nephew of the petitioner. His claim came to

be invalidated on 09/08/2018. He had filed Writ Petition No.9382 of

2018 in this Court challenging the invalidation of his tribe claim. Vide

order dated 10/08/2018, this Court set aside the invalidation and

directed the Respondent/Committee to issue a tribe validity certificate.

Thereafter, Sartika Balaji Palekar and Sayali Balaji Palekar, the blood

relatives of the petitioner, had also filed validity proceeding. However,

the Respondent/Committee vide judgment and order dated 26/11/2020

invalidated their tribe claims. They filed Writ Petition No.8417 of 2020

before this Court thereby challenging the said invalidation. This Court by

order dated 18/12/2020 directed the Respondent/Committee to issue

validity certificates to Sartika Palekar and Sayali Palekar. However, this

Court in Writ Petition Nos.9382 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.8417 of

2020, respectively, directed the Respondent/Committee to issue validity

certificates in favour of these persons.
                                   (5)                  WP-5349-2025




5.    One niece of the petitioner, namely, Chaitanya Sanjay Palekar, had

submitted a proposal for issuance of validity certificate. In her vigilance

inquiry report, the report was adverse. Relying upon the said Vigilance

Cell report, the Respondent No.2/Committee invalidated the tribe claim

of Chaitanya by judgment and order dated 07/07/2022. She also

challenged the said invalidation by filing Writ Petition No.8531 of 2022

before this Court. The said invalidation was upheld by this Court by

dismissing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 24/07/2023.


6.    In the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the said Chaitanya, the

Hon’ble Apex Court protected said Chaitanya only on accepting an

undertaking from her father giving up his tribe claim. In that view, the

tribe certificate of father of Chaitanya came to be cancelled. The Hon’ble

Apex Court, in the case of Chaitanya, though protected her MBBS

degree, imposed fine of Rs.5 lakh on the father of Chaitanya. It is

thereafter that the case of the petitioner came to be reopened. The

petitioner appeared and filed the application before the Committee

requesting to keep the proceedings of the petitioner in abeyance till

finalization of SLP (C) No. 15099 of 2024 and other companion matters
                                       (6)            WP-5349-2025




pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The challenge is in respect of

the power of the Respondent/Committee to review/recall its orders.

However, the Respondent/Committee proceeded further and by way of

the impugned judgment dated 04/04/2025, cancelled the certificate

granted in favour of the petitioner.


7.    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and

order dated 04/04/2025 passed by this Respondent/Committee, the

petitioner approached before this Court challenging the said order by

filing present writ petition.


8.    Mr. Vibhute, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently

argued the petition. He submits that, at the outset, the Committee could

not have reopened the case of the petitioner, as the Committee does not

have the power to review its own judgment. Though this contention was

raised before the Committee, the Committee did not accept the same.

Since the Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning the issue of power of

the Committee is pending, it was necessary for the Committee not to

proceed with the matter. There are many validity certificates granted in
                                   (7)                 WP-5349-2025




the family and those are intact. The Committee still decided the case

after reopening. He relied upon orders passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No. 9382 of 2018 in the case of Nishikant Rajaram Kandhare Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. and Writ Petition No. 8417 of 2020

in the case of Sartika d/o. Balaji Palekar and Anr. Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Ors., thereby granting conditional validity to the

petitioners therein.


9.    On merits, he submits that the Committee has wrongly inferred

that there is interpolation in the caste column in school record. Though

it was specifically contended that the Committee does not have the

power to review its own judgment/order, the Committee has wrongly

held that there is power to review. He submits that unless the power to

review is specifically conferred upon the Committee, no review is

maintainable. The Committee erred in holding that the petitioner had

obtained the certificate by suppressing the material facts and

misrepresented the Committee. Further, the observation that the bogus

documents were submitted before the Committee is also not correct. His

case needs to be decided on its own merits. In the present case, the cases
                                      (8)                 WP-5349-2025




of relatives were considered while invalidating the claim of the

petitioner. He thus prays that the petition be allowed by quashing and

setting aside the impugned order. Committee needs to be directed to

issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner.


10.   Mr. Wani, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent/State

vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the Committee has

rightly invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. In exceptional

circumstances, where fraud or misrepresentation is detected, it is open

for the Committee to reopen cases. In the present case, it was observed

that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of invalidation of his own

brother by the Tribe Verification Committee, Pune. The caste claim of the

petitioner himself was invalidated by the Committee at Pune on

26/04/1989. The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Divisional

Commissioner. The said appeal was also dismissed on 20/06/1991. By

suppressing those facts, the petitioner again submitted a fresh proposal

before the Aurangabad Committee on 21/01/2006, and in that, he

obtained the validity certificate. His brother had also challenged such

invalidation before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare
                                     (9)                 WP-5349-2025




Department, Nashik, and the same was dismissed. Both these facts were

suppressed. In the case of Chaitanya, the invalidation was confirmed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that there is a specific

finding recorded by the Committee that the school records of his cousin

aunt, namely Anita, cousin uncle, Rajaram Kandhare, and another

cousin uncle, namely Sanjeev Palekar, were fabricated. Their caste in the

caste column in school records was initially mentioned as “ मुनुरवार”,

“मुनरवार” and "मेनूरवारलू", respectively; however, the word (लू) was added

subsequently in different ink at one place, and at other places, by

bracketing the word "मुनुरवार" it was as written (मन्नेरवारलू) in red ink.

Those entries are from the years 1972 to 1977.


11.    In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following

judgments:


        (i)     Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation
                of India and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and
                Ors.1
        (ii)    Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. Vs. R. Valasina
                Babu2;


1 (2017) 8 SCC 670
2 (2007) 2 SCC 335
                                    ( 10 )                 WP-5349-2025




        (iii) State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje3;
        (iv) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and
             Anr. Vs. Karamjit Singh4;
        (v)     Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar
                and Ors.5;

12.    He thus submits that no interference is required at the hands of

this Court. He prays for rejection of the writ petition.


13.    Learned advocate Mr. Bangar, appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to

5, also opposed the petition. He submitted that when the claim of the

petitioner is invalidated, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner as

belonging to a person from the Scheduled Tribe category.


14.    This Court has gone through the petition papers and also perused

the files of the petitioner and the orders passed by the Committee. This

Court has verified the material documents which were produced by the

petitioner before this Court.


15.    In the case of Chaitanya, a niece of the petitioner, the Hon’ble

Apex Court came down very heavily on the conduct of her father,

3 (2007) 14 SCC 481
4 (2019) 16 SCC 782
5 (2008) 9 SCC 54
                                   ( 11 )               WP-5349-2025




brother of this petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the case of

real brother of the petitioner, namely, Rajiv Palekar, whose invalidation

was suppressed. It was recorded that in Chaitanya’s case false affidavit

was filed stating that there was no invalidation in the family. It was only

on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case that the Court

granted liberty to the applicant keeping in mind her career. An

undertaking was given by the father of the petitioner therein that

henceforth, no claim or benefit would be sought as belonging to the

Scheduled Tribe. The father was directed to deposit an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) with the National Defence Fund. The

petition was thus disposed of. It is thus clear that even the Hon’ble Apex

Court recorded that the claim of Rajiv Palekar, the real brother of the

petitioner, was invalidated, and that fact was suppressed; and on such

grounds, further time was sought by others in the family. This was

clearly done by the Hon’ble Apex Court by using power with the Court

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. What is material is the

fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also confirmed the finding of the

Committee and the High Court that a fraud was played in the case of
                                            ( 12 )                    WP-5349-2025




real brother of the petitioner and niece.


16.   In the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (supra) and in the case of

Ketaki d/o Bhumayya Muttepod Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11751 of 2025, observed as

under:

         “35. So far as the second principle, noticed by us, is concerned, there
         is no dearth of authority. Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. When an order
         has been obtained by practising fraud on the court, it would be a
         nullity.
         36.      In Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
         [(2008) 3 SCC 556], this Court held:
                  “It is now a well settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn
         acts. If an order is obtained by reason of commission of fraud, even
         the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with
         for setting aside the same.”
         It was further observed:
                  “In T. Vijendradas and Anr. v. M. Subramanian and Ors., this
         Court held;
               27. ...When a fraud is practiced on a court, the same is rendered
               a nullity. In a case of nullity, even the principles of natural justice
               are not required to be complied with. [Kendriya Vidyalaya
               Sangathan and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Das and Ors. & A. Umarani v
               Registrar, Cooperative societies and Ors.]
               28. Once it is held that by reason of commission of a fraud, a
               decree is rendered to be void rendering all subsequent
               proceedings taken pursuant thereto also nullity, in our opinion, it
               would be wholly inequitable to confer a benefit on a party, who
               is a beneficiary thereunder.…”
         37.      In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. [2008
         (10) SCALE 227], this Court opined:
                                  ( 13 )                  WP-5349-2025



        “Reference was also made to a recent decision of this Court in
A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2007) 4 SCC
221. Considering English and Indian cases, one of us (C.K. Thakker,
J.) stated:
         ‘22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment
         decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court,
         Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law.
         Such a judgment, decree or order - by the first Court or by the
         final Court - has to be treated as nullity by every Court,
         superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any
         time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral
         proceedings.’
 The Court defined fraud as an act of deliberate deception with the
design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another.
In fraud one gains at the loss and cost of another. Even the most
solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud
is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts,
whether in rem or in personam.”
38.     The order dated 11.08.1988, thus, would not operate as a res
judicata so as to disable it from considering the merit of the case of
the respondent No. 1 by the State of Maharashtra or Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board afresh. The decision of the High Court ex facie
is unsustainable.
39.     We may at this juncture notice some decisions of this Court
where the question at hand has been discussed. In State of
Maharashtra and Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and
Another [(2007) 1 SCC 80], this Court held:
   “23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality
   amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective
   discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged
   group to come on the same platform as that of the forward
   community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the
   said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the
   benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the
   Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only
   plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud
   on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a
                                 ( 14 )                   WP-5349-2025



  person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect
  to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter.
  24. We, with respect, fail to appreciate the approach of the High
  Court as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of the
  respondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention
  in one or the other entries of the Schedule appended to the 1976
  Order, the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry in
  relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by
  any committee. The observations and directions of the High Court,
  in our considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments
  of the Court but also fall short of the ground realities.
  25. Mr Arvind Savant, the learned Senior Counsel, would place
  strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan
  Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and in particular paras 18 and 19
  thereof, which read as under: (SCC p.365)
         “18. These judgments leave no doubt that the Scheduled
         Castes Order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry
         can be held or evidence let in to determine whether or not
         some particular community falls within it or outside it. No
         action to modify the plain effect of the Scheduled Castes
         Order, except as contemplated by Article 341, is valid.
         19. The Thandan community in the instant case having been
         listed in the Scheduled Castes Order as it now stands, it is not
         open to the State Government or,           indeed, to this Court
         to embark upon an enquiry to determine whether a section of
         Ezhavas/Thiyyas which was called Thandan in the Malabar
         area of the State was excluded from the benefits of the
         Scheduled Castes Order.”
40.    In Addl. General Manager – Human Resource, Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336] , this
Court held:
       “14. In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31-
5-1982 on a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled
Tribe. On receiving complaints the employer referred the matter to the
District Collector, Nagpur and also to the Scrutiny Committee in
March 1991. The subsequent period has been spent in making enquiry
and in litigation as the respondent filed three writ petitions. In view
                                         ( 15 )                  WP-5349-2025



       of the principle laid down by this Court we are clearly of the opinion
       that his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and the High
       Court was in error in directing his reinstatement. The order passed by
       the High Court, therefore, has to be set aside.”
       41.    In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sanjay K. Nimje [2007(2)
       SCALE 214], it was held that a person cannot get a benefit to which
       he is not otherwise entitled to.”


17.   In the case of Apoorva Nichale Vs. DCCS Committee and ors.

reported at 2010 (6) MhLJ 401, relevant paragraph No.7 and 9 which

read as follows:

       “7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of
       enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted
       earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the
       same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant
       such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if
       the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud
       or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow
       and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.”
       8. --------
       “9. In the present case, we find that the committee has disbelieved the
       petitioners case that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat after calling the
       school leaving certificate of petitioners father and noticing that the
       original caste written on it was Thakur and that was subsequently
       changed to Kanjar Bhat. The committee observed that the caste has
       been changed without complying with the procedure prescribed by
       sections 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact,
       the caste has been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From the
       findings of the committee it appears that the committee has observed
       that the change of caste has been done illegally. Obviously, the
       committee which decided the caste claim of the petitioners sister did
       not hold the same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant
       validity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee
       which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the
       petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to
       have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to
                                        ( 16 )                   WP-5349-2025



      validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the
      future generations in many matters varying from marriage to
      education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given
      a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another
      committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who
      applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle
      the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.
      There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a
      committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by
      fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity
      certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition
      initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of
      the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is
      made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is
      directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner.”


18.   In the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra)

paragraph 1 reads as under:

      “1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of
      life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir,
      Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain
      these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of
      justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era
      and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
      irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence
      period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The
      materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for
      personal gain has become so intense that those involved in
      litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
      misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court
      proceedings.”



19.   So far as the judgment in the case of Chairman and Managing

Director Food Corporation Of India and Ors. (supra) is concerned, it is
                                        ( 17 )                  WP-5349-2025




clear that no person can retain the benefits secured on the basis of a

false claim. Once the certificate is cancelled or invalidated, the person

has to face action under Sections 10 to 11 of the Act, 2000.


20.   In the case of Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. Vs. R.

Valasina Babu, paragraph No.13 and 14 reads as under:

       “13. In the aforementioned situation, we see no reason as to why the
       inquiry officer or for that matter disciplinary authority could not have
       taken into consideration the subsequent event. Moreover, as noticed
       hereinbefore, the disciplinary authority had given another
       opportunity of hearing and the respondent availed the same. He also
       preferred an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. In
       this view of the matter, the Tribunal as also the High Court, in our
       opinion, committed a manifest error of law in allowing the Original
       Application filed by the respondent on the premise that the said order
       dated 18.11.1990 passed by the Collector should not have been taken
       into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate
       Authority.

       14. The question in regard to effect of obtaining appointment by
       producing false certificate came up for consideration in State of
       Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulasing Parmar and Anr.,
       (2006) 10 SCALE 575, wherein this Court opined that the concerned
       authorities would have jurisdiction to go into the said question and
       pass an appropriate order. The effect of cancellation of such Caste
       Certificate had also been noticed in the light of two Judge Bench
       decision of this Court in Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Arinash D.
       Mandirkar & Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690, wherein it was held that if the
       employee concerned having played fraud in obtaining an
       appointment, he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof, as
       the foundation of appointment collapses.”
                                        ( 18 )                  WP-5349-2025




21.   In the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje

(supra), it was held that a person cannot get a benefit to which he is not

otherwise entitled to. Paragraph No.16 reads as under:

       “16. The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail over any
       Government Resolution. A Government Resolution may be
       beneficient in nature but it is well-settled that a benefit under a
       Government Resolution cannot be extended to a person who does
       not satisfy the conditions precedent thereof. In any event, the effect
       of the judgment of this Court as also the provisions of a statute in
       the light of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 341
       and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted by reason of
       a Government Resolution or otherwise.”


22.   In the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority

(supra), it was held that if the appointment itself is illegal, then such

defect goes to the root of the matter. When such a person has absorbed

as a regular employee, he cannot be considered to be an employee and

would not be entitled to any benefits under the regularization given to

the employees of the appellate authority. In that case, the High Court

had protected the services of the employees. It was further held that

when the employee is not a valid employee of the authority and does not

hold a civil post under the State Government, he was merely a daily

wager on the muster rolls of the appellant authority. No departmental
                                      ( 19 )           WP-5349-2025




inquiry is necessary in such cases.


23.   In the present case, it is clearly observed in the judgment of the

Committee that initially the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate

on 31/07/1987 from Tahsildar Nanded. The Pune Committee on

26/04/1989 had clearly held the claim to be invalid. Against that, the

petitioner had approached the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare

Department, Nashik. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by

judgment and order dated 19/06/1991. However, he again by

suppressing the earlier invalidation, submitted caste validity proposal on

21/01/2006 and obtained validity certificate. Similar was the fact in the

case of his real brother namely, Sanjay Palekar. Since this fraud was

detected, the case of the petitioner was reopened. His reals brother’s

daughter namely, Chaitanya also suffered invalidation. The said order

attained finality till the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has

considered the case of Sanjay as well. It is thus clear that there was a

fraud committed. False affidavit was filed while obtaining the validity

certificate.
                                    ( 20 )               WP-5349-2025




24.    In the case of cousin aunt namely, Anita, the caste was written in

the school as “मुनुरवार” subsequently word (लू) is added in different ink so

far as admission dated 14/07/1976 is concerned.



25.    In the case of Rajaram Kandhare and Sanjiv Palekar is concerned,

they were admitted to the school where the caste was written as मुन्नरवार

and मुनुरवाड, respectively. Later on, it was bracketed and caste was

written as "मन्नेरवारलू". Thus, this entries were considered by the

Committee. The Court also considered the case of Sartika Balaji Palekar,

wherein the entries of 1951 was considered and the report was given by

the Vigilance Cell Committee wherein the caste of one Laxman,

Tukaram, Vitthal and Gyanoba, who happens to be grand sons of said

Sarthika, were shown as "मुनुरवाड" in the census report. The same was

with one Chandrabai and Nagabai, who were the aunts of her father.

Their caste was also shown as "मुनुरवाड" in 1951 census. The Committee

in the judgment also considered the judgment in the case of Rajesh

Baburao Bone Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.6.



6 SLP(C)/10430/2014
                                           ( 21 )               WP-5349-2025




26.          In the present case fraud is played by the petitioner as is clear from

record. His niece’s claim is invalidated and that has attained finality till

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.



27.          Considering above, this Court finds that no case is made out by the

petitioner calling for interference at the hands of this Court. As stated

above, though it is prayed that the petitioner has rendered long service

in the department and his services be protected. This Court finds that

the said cannot be done in view of judgment in the case of Punjab Urban

Planning and Development Authority (supra). No inquiry was also to be

held to be done when appointment is shown to have been outcome of

fraud.


28.          Considering all above, this Court finds that no case is made out to

allow the writ petition. Writ petition stands dismissed and disposed off

accordingly.




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