Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI SHANKAR BAIKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

Decided: 23 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

In the absence of pre‑constitutional documentary proof and upon failure of the affinity test, the petitioner’s claim of Scheduled Tribe status cannot be accepted.

Summary

Shivaji Shankar Baikar filed a writ petition challenging the Scrutiny Committee's rejection of his claim that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The court examined the precedent set in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which requires giving due weight to pre‑constitutional documents when assessing tribal status, while also considering affinity tests. The petitioner presented only a 1969 school leaving record of his father indicating Mahadev Koli caste, which post‑dates the 1950 constitutional order and thus is not a pre‑constitutional document. No earlier documents were available, and the Vigilance Cell report showed the petitioner failed the affinity test. Consequently, the court found no error in the Scrutiny Committee’s decision and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s claim of belonging to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe can be accepted in the absence of pre‑constitutional documentary evidence
Whether the affinity test and the Vigilance Cell report are sufficient to reject the claim

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
pre‑constitutional document
affinity test
Scrutiny Committee
caste verification

Judgment

                                                      (21) WP 9321-16.doc

DDR

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9321 OF 2016
      Shivaji Shankar Baikar                       ...Petitioner
                 versus
      State of Maharashtra & Others.               ...Respondents

                                  ….........

      Mr. C.K. Bhangoji, for the Petitioner.
      Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4.
                                   ….........

                                       CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &
                                               M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
                                       DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2017


      P.C. :


                   The petitioner challenges the order of respondent

      no.2 Scrutiny Committee whereby claim of the petitioner that he

      belongs to Mahadeo Koli which is notified as Schedule Tribes is

      rejected. We have perused the impugned order passed by the

      Scrutiny Committee.



      2.           The Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri

      Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra (1994 (6) SCC 241) has held

                                                                      1/3
                                                 (21) WP 9321-16.doc

that while considering a claim of candidate due weightage will

have to be given to the preconstitutional document. It has been

held that, may be with passage of time, the candidates may not

be aware of the traits of particular tribe and as such they failed

in affinity test. It has further been held that though due

weightage will have to be given to the preconstitutional

document, the said tests will also be relevant in the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the present case not a single pre

constitutional document is available with the petitioner showing

that the petitioner belongs to Mahadev Koli. As a matter of fact

the earliest document of the petitioner's father shows that his

caste to be Hindu Mahadev Koli. No doubt that the petitioner

relies on one document i.e. school leaving record of petitioner's

father which shows his caste to be Mahadev Koli, however the

said document is of the year 1969 i.e. much after the order of

1950 came into effect. The documents which were brought on

record shows that their caste is Hindu Koli.



3.         In view of the non availability of the pre



                                                                 2/3
                                                (21) WP 9321-16.doc

constitutional document, the affinity test would play vital role.

However the petitioner has also failed the affinity test, as is

evident from the Vigilance Cell report. We see nothing wrong in

the view taken by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petition is

rejected.




 (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                        ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)




                                                                3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…