Bombay High Court

SUBHASH HARISHING SHILEDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MADHAV JAMDAR PRAVIN SHESHRAO PATIL

Holding

The Court held that the District Caste Scrutiny Committee’s findings were correct and dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Subhash Harishing Shiledar, challenged the District Caste Scrutiny Committee’s order rejecting his claim that he belongs to the "Rajput Bhamta" caste, seeking a remand for fresh adjudication. He relied on a school record of his alleged paternal aunt showing the "Rajput Bhamta" caste, arguing that this new evidence warrants reconsideration. The Committee had earlier noted that the petitioner’s own records originally listed "Hindu Rajput" and that he had altered the caste entry in 1985 to obtain VJNT benefits, finding no justification for the change. The High Court examined the aunt’s record, found it insufficient due to lack of a family tree and corroborating documents, and upheld the Committee’s findings. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Court reiterated that judicial review of such committees is limited to procedural fairness, not re‑evaluation of evidence, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s newly produced school record of his paternal aunt is sufficient to remand the caste verification matter to the District Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Whether the High Court can set aside the findings of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee on caste verification.
Whether the petitioner’s change of caste entry in 1985 was a legitimate claim or an attempt to obtain VJNT benefits.

Subjects

caste verification
reservation
VJNT category
judicial review
evidence
district caste scrutiny committee

Judgment

                                                     21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc


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

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 881 OF 2026

Subhash Harishing Shiledar                          ...Petitioner
      VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr                    ...Respondents
                           ——————

 Mr. Eshan Nayak, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for respondents-State.
                              ——————
                                Coram :     Madhav J. Jamdar &
                                            Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

                                Date      : March 4, 2026.

ORDER (PER PRAVIN S. PATIL, J) :

1.    Heard.

2.    By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by

Respondent No.2 – District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur,

whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Rajput

Bhamta” has been rejected.

3.    The petitioner has approached this Court with the submission

that though his father and grandfather are recorded as belonging to

“Hindu Rajput”, he has recently obtained certain documents of Ms.

Sulochana Sahadevsingh Shiledar, who is stated to be the paternal aunt

of the petitioner. In her school record, the caste entry is shown as


adn                              1 of 4
                                                    21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc


“Rajput Bhamta”. On the basis of this document, it is submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that the matter requires reconsideration and

therefore deserves to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for

fresh adjudication of the caste claim.

4.    In the present case, we have gone through the order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has rightly recorded in the

impugned order that in the year 1985, at the instance of the present

petitioner, the caste entry of the petitioner which was earlier recorded

as “Hindu Rajput” was changed as “Rajput Bhamta” and get it

conirmed from Deputy Director of Education. This fact demonstrate

that the petitioner has intentionally changed his caste as “Rajput

Bhamta” to get beneit of VJNT category. Furthermore petitioner has

no explanation to substantiate as to how said change of caste is

justiied in the matter.

5.    It is further pertinent to note that the Committee has also

recorded a inding that in all the documents produced by the

petitioner before the Committee, the word “Bhamta” is not found

aixed to the caste “Rajput”. On the contrary, in the school records of

the petitioner’s grandfather for the years 1927 and 1934, the caste is

recorded as “Hindu Rajput”.

6.    The Committee has also taken note of one document relating to



adn                              2 of 4
                                                    21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc


school leaving certiicate of primary school of the petitioner of the

year 1934, wherein the caste is recorded as “Rajput”. Thus, the

Committee by considering pre-independence documents which is

having much probative value, decided the caste claim of petitioner.

7.    The petitioner has for the irst time before this Court relied upon

the school leaving record of his alleged paternal aunt, namely Ms.

Sulochana Sahadevsingh Shiledar. A perusal of the said record shows

that she had taken admission in the school on 31st March 1952 and her

caste is recorded as “Rajput Bhamta”. In our opinion, this document

cannot be treated as a substantial piece of evidence for the reason that

the petitioner has failed to produce the family tree to establish her

relationship with the petitioner. Moreover, there are no other

documents placed on record to show that Ms. Sulochana Sahadevsingh

Shiledar was recorded as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta” either in her

entire school record or in any other revenue record. In view thereof,

the said document cannot be treated as suicient material so as to

warrant remand of the matter to the Scrutiny Committee.

8.    It will be relevant to refer the authoritative Judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr v/s. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors reported in (1994) 6 SCC

241, wherein in paragraph 15 of the judgment observed as under :



adn                             3 of 4
                                                             21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc


             “15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by
             the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is
             vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of
             appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is
             empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when
             records a inding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found
             vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to
             limitations of interference with indings of fact. The
             Committee when considers all the material facts and
             records a inding, though another view, as a court of appeal
             may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the indings.
             The court has to see whether the Committee considered all
             the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its
             mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee
             ultimately record the inding. Each case must be considered
             in the backdrop of its own facts.”
9.       We are of the considered opinion that the Committee has rightly

recorded its indings on the basis of the material available before it.

Therefore, we do not ind any merit in the present petition. The

petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.


      [Pravin S. Patil, J.]                         [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




adn                                    4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…