SMT. REHANA SHAMSHUDDIN BEGDEversusDIVISIONAL CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE NO.1 AND ORS

                                                                                                WP-9433-2016.odt




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

                                             WRIT PETITION NO.9433 OF 2016


                      Smt. Rehana Shamshuddin Begde                          ]
                      Age – 44 years, Occupation – Service                   ]
                      Residing at Bhimnagar, Chavan Galli,                   ]
                      Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.                            ]     Petitioner
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
                                       versus
HALKUDE Date:
         2026.10.07
         12:02:42
         +0530
                      1.         Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 ]
                                 Solapur, Ambedkar Bhavan,                ]
                                 Sat Rasta, Solapur.                      ]

                      2.         State of Maharashtra                        ]     Respondents
                                                           …..
                      Mr. Balaji P. Shinde a/w Mr. Sanket S. Rajmane i/b Mr. Ashok B. Tajane,
                      Advocates for Petitioner.
                      Mr. Atul P. Vanarase, A.G.P., for Respondents – State.
                                                           …..

                                                CORAM                 :     RAJESH S. PATIL AND
                                                                           ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                                           RESERVED ON                :     23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                                           PRONOUNCED ON              :     7th OCTOBER, 2026.


                      JUDGMENT: [PER ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.]:

                      1.               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, by consent, taken up

                      for final hearing.

                      2.               Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for

                      the Respondent.
                      Shailaja                                                                       Page 1 of 9
                                                                      WP-9433-2016.odt



3.              The Petition questions the order dated 24th June 2016 (27th June

2016) passed by Respondent No.1 – Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee

No.1, Solapur (for short, “the Committee”), whereby the claim of the

Petitioner that she belongs to ‘Momin’, Other Backward Class (for short,

“O.B.C.”), has been invalidated.

4.              The Petitioner claims that she belongs to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C.

caste. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector issued a caste certificate in her

favour on 1st      September 1997. By order dated 22nd January 2007, the

Petitioner was appointed as a “Staff Nurse” by the Deputy Director of Health

Services, Latur. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted her caste certificate

along with the relevant documents to the Deputy Director of Health Services,

Latur, who, in turn, forwarded the same to Respondent No.1–Committee for

verification.

5.              Since Respondent No.1–Committee was dissatisfied with the

documents submitted by the Petitioner through the Deputy Director of Health

Services, Latur, those documents were forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for

conducting a detailed inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Vigilance Cell conducted

an inquiry and submitted its report to Respondent No.1–Committee on 5 th

March 2016.

6.              Respondent No.1–Committee, vide show cause notice dated 13th

April 2016, called upon the Petitioner to submit her explanation about the
Shailaja                                                                   Page 2 of 9
                                                                     WP-9433-2016.odt



entry of her caste as “Muslim” in her College Leaving Certificate, as also on

the ground that she had not produced any document prior to the year 1967

before the Committee. On 4th June 2016, the Petitioner submitted her reply

cum explanation to the said notice, explaining that her father was admitted to

school in the year 1945 and, at the time of admission, his caste was not

mentioned in the school records. Accordingly, she does not have documents

for the period before 1967. However, she contended that she and her family

were residents of the State of Maharashtra before 1967.

7.           After affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and

upon considering the Vigilance Cell report, Respondent No.1–Committee,

vide the impugned order dated 24th June 2016 (27th June 2016), invalidated

the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition.

8.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently contended that

Respondent No.1–Committee, without affording an opportunity of hearing to

the Petitioner, has passed the impugned order, thereby failing to comply with

the mandate prescribed under Rule 12 of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012

(for short, “the Rules”). He further submitted that Respondent No.1–

Committee failed to appreciate the documents placed on record in their

proper perspective and erred in passing a cryptic and unreasoned order. He,

therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes

Shailaja                                                                  Page 3 of 9
                                                                     WP-9433-2016.odt



of law. He further propounded that Respondent No.1–Committee erred in

ignoring the Vigilance Cell report; therefore, the impugned order is illegal

and bad in law.

9.           Lastly, it is argued that the committee, in the impugned order,

despite recording that there is no tradition amongst Muslims to record the

sub-caste in the School Leaving Certificate/record, Respondent No.1–

Committee erred in not granting validity to the caste claim of the Petitioner.

It is submitted that, in such circumstances, Respondent No.1–Committee

ought to have granted validity to the Petitioner's caste claim. However,

Respondent No.1–Committee erred in holding that no cogent and reliable

documentary evidence was produced before it in support of the Petitioner’s

caste claim. He, therefore, urged that the Petition be allowed.

10.          Learned A.G.P. strongly opposed the Petition on the ground that

the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1–Committee is based on the

material produced before it. The document referred to in the chart at Sr. No. 2

is the College Leaving Certificate dated 17th August 1994, wherein the

Petitioner's caste is recorded as “Muslim”. Upon considering the said

document, Respondent No.1–Committee rightly invalidated the Petitioner's

caste claim of belonging to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C. caste. He further submitted

that the Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast upon her to

establish that she belongs to the Momin O.B.C. caste. He, therefore, urged

Shailaja                                                                  Page 4 of 9
                                                                                         WP-9433-2016.odt



that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1–Committee is just, legal

and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

11.               We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the

learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned order

as well as the record. We have also perused the original record, which has

been returned to it.

12.               While dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, in our

view, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the documents

produced by the Petitioner before the Committee, which are crucial to

determine the controversy between the parties, as under:



     v-dz-                       iqjkO;kpk ri’khy                      Tkkrhph uksan    mesnokjk’kh
                                                                                        vlysys ukrs
1-           miftYgkf/kdkjh rFkk l{ke izkf/kdkjh] lksykiqj ft- eksehu                  Lor%
             lksykiqj ;kauh mesnokj csxMs jsgkuk 'ke'kqnnhu ;kauk fuxZfer
             dsysys       eksehu     ¼b-ek-o½       tkrhps       izek.ki=
             dz-MAG/CASTE/SR/2357/1997 lu 1997
2            izkpk;Z] laxes’oj dkWyst] lksykiwj ;kauh csxMs jsgkuk eqfLye              Lor%
             'ke'kksnnhu ;kauk fnysys ‘kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk] ‘kkGk izos’k
             fn- 07@07@1989
3            xzkeiapk;r rkeyokMh rk- rqGtkiqj ft- mLekukckn ;kauh ---                  vkR;k
             gqjer mQZ tqcsnk ;kdqc csxMs ;kaP;k ukokus fuxZfer dsysys
             tUekpk nk[kyk] fuxZe fn- 25@06@1997
4            lksykiqj egkuxjikfydk] lksykiqj ;kauh ‘ke’kksnnhu ;kdqc ---               oMhy
             csxMs ;kaph fn- 05@01@1993 jksth e`R;q >kysckcr e`R;q
             izek.ki= fn-11@02@1993 ph izr
5            ªpsvjesu] eksehu tekr VªLV lksykiqj ;kauh csxkuk --                       ---
             'ke'kqnnhu csxMs ;kaP;k ukos fuxZfer dsysyk nk£yk fn-
             14@07@2015
Shailaja                                                                                       Page 5 of 9
                                                                             WP-9433-2016.odt




6          ekSts reyokMh rk- rqGtkiqj ft- mLekukckn ;sFkhy xV dz- 16 ---   ---
           pk mrkjk izr fn- 08@08@2015 rlsp xko uequk u-8 pk
           mrkjk izr
7          mesnokj ;kauh fn- 19@08@2015 jksth lknj dsysys oa’kkoGh ---     Lor%
           izfrKki=



13.              It is pertinent to note that the document at Sr. No.2 is the

College Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner, which indicates that she was

admitted to the College on 7th July 1989 and at that time her caste was

recorded as “Muslim”. This is the oldest document the Petitioner produced

before the Committee. The other document at Sr. No.1 on which the

Petitioner relies is the caste certificate issued by the Deputy Collector cum

Competent Authority, Solapur, in 1997, wherein her caste is recorded as

“Momin”. However, except the aforesaid two documents (i.e., the documents

at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2), none of the documents at Sr. Nos. 3 to 7 that the

Petitioner produced record the caste of the Petitioner or that of her ancestors.

Therefore, the documents at Sr. Nos. 3 to 7 are not helpful to the Petitioner in

support of her caste claim. It is, therefore, significant to note that the

document at Sr. No.2, being the College Leaving Certificate, is the oldest

document produced on record, wherein the caste of the Petitioner is recorded

as “Muslim”.

14.              It is trite law that a person who approaches the Court has to

demonstrate that he or she belongs to a particular caste. Similarly, it is a

Shailaja                                                                          Page 6 of 9
                                                                      WP-9433-2016.odt



settled principle of law that a person acquires caste by birth. Documents from

the pre-Constitutional era carry greater probative value than the subsequent

documents. Likewise, in a claim of belonging to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C. caste,

documents from the period before 1967 carry greater probative value.

Therefore, documents from the pre-Constitutional era, or those before 1967,

relating to the Petitioner or her ancestors, carry greater probative value than

the subsequent entries.

15.             The document at Sr. No. 2 records the caste of the Petitioner as

“Muslim”. Therefore, the Petitioner owes an explanation for the said entry,

which she has failed to furnish. The Petitioner has, thus, failed to discharge

the burden cast upon her under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled

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

Tribes, Other Backwards Classes and Special Backwards Category

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

short, “the Act”). As against, she does not dispute the said entry, which

records her caste as ‘Muslim’.

16.             In Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad and Others Vs Deputy Director &

Member-Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Amravati and others [W. P. No.12/2022 decided on 17-04-2023]1 full bench of this

court, after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court as well

as this court, has categorically held that ‘ entries in the documents have to be
1    2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1991

Shailaja                                                                   Page 7 of 9
                                                                          WP-9433-2016.odt



read as they are and the same cannot be read differently’. It would be

appropriate to reproduce para 17.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus:

           17.7. It would thus be clear that any claim by any tribe, sub-
           tribe or parts of such tribe or sub-tribe, whether having any
           similarity, prefix/suffix, synonymity, with the name of the tribe
           as mentioned in the Presidential (ST) Order 1950, of being
           included in such Scheduled Tribe, would not be permissible.
           No enquiry in respect of such a claim is permissible. No
           enquiry of any nature whatsoever is permissible with
           reference to any material, whatever it may be and in whatever
           form, to interpret or construe the entries in the Presidential
           (ST) Order 1950, which have to be read as it is. The
           Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’ in Entry 18 has to be read as only
           and only ‘Mana’ and not as an umbrella or community and
           therefore, tribes with similar/synonymous names or names
           with a prefix/suffix to ‘Mana’ cannot claim any social status
           of a Scheduled Tribe. Thus, persons belonging to tribes or
           sub-tribes such as ‘Badwaik Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’,
           ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Badwaik Mana’, ‘Kunbi
           Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’, ‘Gond Mana’, ‘Mani’/ ‘Mane’,
           ‘Mane Ku’, ‘Mana Ku’, ‘Ku Mana’, ‘Mana Kunbi’, ‘Patil
           Mana’, etc cannot be held to be included in the Scheduled
           Tribe ‘Mana’, in entry 18 in the Presidential (ST) order
           1950 and thus cannot claim the Status of a Scheduled Tribe.


17.              Having considered the aforesaid discussion and the document at

Sr. No.2, in our opinion, the Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast

upon her under Section 8 of the Act to establish that she belongs to the

‘Momin’ O.B.C. caste. The Petitioner has also failed to produce any

document on record to substantiate her claim of belonging to the ‘Momin’

O.B.C. caste. Thus, the Petitioner has failed to explain the adverse entry in
Shailaja                                                                       Page 8 of 9
                                                                     WP-9433-2016.odt



her College Leaving Certificate, wherein her caste is recorded as “ Muslim”,

despite having been afforded an opportunity to explain the same. Apart from

this, there is no reason to disbelieve the said entry in the College Leaving

Certificate, as the same was recorded based on the statement made by the

father of the Petitioner, which she does not dispute.

18.          In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the Petitioner

cannot be said to belong to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C. caste. Rather, in our view, the

Committee was justified in recording a finding that the Petitioner failed to

establish that she belongs to the ‘Momin’ O.B.C. caste.

19.          For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case is

made out for causing interference in the exercise of our extraordinary

jurisdiction. Consequently, the Petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20.          The Rule is discharged.




[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.]                                   [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]




Shailaja                                                                  Page 9 of 9