JYOTI TULSHIRAMJI DONGEversusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL , JALGAON JAMOD

                                                                     11-WP-9741-2007.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9741 OF 2007

Ku. Jyoti d/o Tulshiramji Donge,                               )
aged about 35 years, Occu. : Service,                          )
R/o Jalgaon Jamod,                                             )
District : Buldhana.                                           ).....Petitioner
             Versus
1. Municipal Council                            )
Jalgaon Jamod, Dist. - Buldhana                 )
Through its Chief Officer,                      )
                                                )
2. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of )
Tribe Claims, Amravati.                         ).....Respondents
                               .....
Mr. R.K.Mendadkar a/w Mrs. Priyanka Shaw, for the Petitioner.

Ms. V.R.Raje, A.G.P, for the Respondents.
                                  ..…
                        CORAM                             : M. S. KARNIK &
                                                           SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                  RESERVED ON             : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026
                                  PRONOUNCED ON           : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026


JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

1.     By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged

the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 24 th December,

2004        passed      by       the   respondent   No.    2/Committee       thereby

invalidating the Caste Certificate dated 4 th August, 1988 of the

petitioner as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.


Wakodikar                                                                         1/14
              Digitally signed
RUPALI        by RUPALI
              RAJESH
RAJESH        WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR     Date: 2026.09.24
              18:05:04 +0530
                                                       11-WP-9741-2007.doc


2.     The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before the Nagpur

Bench of this Court. Vide Judgment and Order dated 1st August, 2018

passed by the Division Bench (Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari and Z. A.

Haq JJ.), this petition alongwith a group of other petitions were

dismissed.      The Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan

Samiti thereafter preferred appeals before the Supreme Court of

India. The Supreme Court of India set aside the Judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court and directed the Registry

to place the matter before the Court for deciding the case

individually.    This is how the matter has been placed before this

Court.


3.     The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon

the record of Kotwal Register in case of great-grandfather of the

petitioner namely Tukaram Ramu, where the Caste is recorded as

Thakur. This certificate was granted on 3rd December, 2013. The

record of Kotwal Register in case of grandfather of the petitioner,

namely Chandrabhan Tukaram, was also relied upon. This record is

of 14th March, 1944 where the caste is duly recorded as ‘Thakur’.


4.     The school admission register in case of the father of the


Wakodikar                                                           2/14
                                                        11-WP-9741-2007.doc


petitioner by name Tulshiram Chandrabhan is relied upon where the

caste is recorded as ‘Thakur’. This is the document of 13 th April,

1949.


5.      The learned Counsel Mr. Mendadkar relied upon the Police

Vigilance Cell Report in the case of petitioner. This document is of

12th November, 2001. The Caste Certificate of the petitioner was

invalidated on 29th December, 1997. The petitioner had filed Writ

Petition No. 696 of 1998 challenging the order passed by the

respondent No. 2/Committee. That writ petition was allowed vide

order dated 27th December, 1998 and the matter was remanded back

to the respondent No. 2/Committee. In the second round of

litigation, the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was once again

invalidated on 18th March, 2002 on the ground of affinity test only.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed

the Writ Petition bearing No. 1887 of 2002 challenging the order

passed by the respondent No. 2/Committee dated 18 th March, 2002.

That petition was also allowed and the matter was remanded back to

the respondent No. 2 to decide the issue afresh.


6.      In the third round of litigation, the committee was once again


Wakodikar                                                            3/14
                                                         11-WP-9741-2007.doc


passed the impugned order thereby invalidating the caste claim of

the petitioner vide order dated 24th December, 2004.           It is the

contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that

affinity test is not the litmus test to decide the caste claim and it is

not an essential part for the process of determination of correctness

of Tribe/Caste claim in every case. He would rely upon the judgment

of the Apex Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur

Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1.               He

submitted that the impugned order is principally based on affinity

test and therefore contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

He submitted that the petitioner has filed school record in relation to

this, her great-grandfather, grandfather and father from the paternal

side showing their tribe recorded as ‘Thakur’ right from the year

1930. He submitted that since the case of the petitioner is supported

by pre-constitutional documents, those documents should be given

great weightage and that invalidating the caste claim certificate of

the petitioner only on the ground of affinity test was perverse. He

prayed for allowing the petition.


7.      The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the

1    2023 SCC OnLine SC 326

Wakodikar                                                             4/14
                                                        11-WP-9741-2007.doc


other hand opposed the petition. The learned Counsel appearing for

the respondent submitted that the petitioner has failed in the affinity

test. He stated that the documents which are relied upon by the

petitioner cannot be considered for the purpose of granting the caste

claim validly.   He contended that the information given by the

petitioner was self-contradictory.


8.     He relied upon the findings in the impugned order to show that

the case of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. He prayed for

dismissal of the petition.


9.     We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

We have perused the material on record. The learned Counsel Mr.

Mendadkar, at the outset, invited our attention to the family tree of

the petitioner. We have perused the family tree of the petitioner

which is a part of record in this petition and duly verified by the

Vigilance Committee. The following is the family tree as supplied by

the petitioner to the Committee:




Wakodikar                                                            5/14
                                                                              11-WP-9741-2007.doc



                               वंशावळ
                        तुकाराम रामू ठाकूर



              अर्जुुन                             चंद्रभान




                    काशिशबाई                                      तुळशीराम
              र्जुन्म ता.२७/८/१९३९                           र्जुन्म ता.२५/५/१९४४



                   प्रमोद                      ज्योती                        मंगेश
            र्जुन्म ता. १.१.१९६४          २५.१.१९६९               र्जुन्म ता. १०.५.१९७२
                                        (प्रतितज्ञार्थी1 स्वतः)


       Upon perusal of the family tree, it is clear that Tukaram Ramu

Thakur was the great-grandfather of the petitioner. Her grandfather

was Chandrabhan and her father is Tulshiram.                         With these relations

as are evident from the family tree, we proceed to consider the

documents submitted by the petitioner. The first document is the

birth and death extract of Tukaram Ramu Thakur which is of 3 rd

December, 1913. The name of the great-grandfather of the petitioner

by name Tukaram Ramu is shown and the caste mentioned is

‘Thakur’.    Thereafter, the next document is the birth and death

extract of the year 1944 of the grandfather of the petitioner by name


Wakodikar                                                                                  6/14
                                                          11-WP-9741-2007.doc


Chandrabhan.      This document shows that the name of the

grandfather of the petitioner is Chandrabhan Tukaram and the Caste

mentioned is ‘Thakur’.


10.    The Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Zilla

Parishad Marathi Primary School, Shegaon, Buldhana shows that the

father of the petitioner, namely Tulshiram Chandrabhan Donge, was

studying in the said school and that he left the school on 30 th April

1958. The caste of Tulshiram is mentioned as ‘Thakur’. It mentions

that the father of the petitioner was studying in the said school from

12th April 1950 to 29th April 1958.


11.    There is yet another document which shows that the

grandfather of the petitioner, by name Chandrabhan Tukaram Donge,

had filed an affidavit while admitting his son to the school wherein it

is stated that his son Tulshiram was born on 25 th May 1944 and his

caste is ‘Thakur’. This document is of 13th April 1949.


12.    These in nutshell are the documents which were before the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the impugned order passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee on 24th December 2005, the Caste Scrutiny



Wakodikar                                                              7/14
                                                       11-WP-9741-2007.doc


Committee has basically relied upon the Vigilance Cell Report.


13.    The Committee observed that although the documents

submitted by the candidates show the caste entries as ‘Thakur’, the

candidate and her relatives are not in a position to explain the

characteristics and trades of their caste to the Committee and could

not prove their affinity towards ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.


14.    The Committee had verified the caste claim. The Scrutiny

Committee conducted the home inquiry through Vigilance Cell

Officer. The Committee observed that the inquiry report and affinity

test clearly showed that the candidate did not belong to ‘Thakur

Scheduled Tribe’.


15.    The Committee proceeded on the footing that the entry

‘Thakur’ does not prove that the petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur

Scheduled Tribe’ and hence, affinity test was conducted. Thus, the

Committee has not discarded the documents which are produced on

record. The only reasoning given by the Committee is that the entry

‘Thakur’ could not prove that the petitioner belongs to the ‘Thakur

Scheduled Tribe’.



Wakodikar                                                           8/14
                                                         11-WP-9741-2007.doc


16.    In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the Maharashtra Adiwasi

Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra).


17.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph numbers 20 and 21

has observed thus:


            “20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which
            cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to
            Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid down in the case
            of Kumari Madhuri Patil (1994) 6 SCC 241. It lays down
            that the documents of the pre-Constitution period
            showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors
            have got the highest probative value. For example, if an
            applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine
            documents of the pre-Constitution period showing that
            he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to
            discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no
            reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST
            order. In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not
            warranted at all.

            21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502
            of 2022 [Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case² (2009) 3 Mah.LJ
            995 (F.B.)], the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has
            noted that people having the surname "Thakur" belong to
            both forward castes and various backward castes.
            Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that in
            every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur, it
            cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the
            applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in

Wakodikar                                                             9/14
                                                          11-WP-9741-2007.doc


            the Entry 44 of the Maharashtra list. However, we must
            note that in the case of a person having the surname
            Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry of the
            name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the
            land records, school or college records or any official
            records concerning the applicant or his ancestors. Only
            on the ground that the persons having the surname
            Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not
            necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee
            should send the case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on
            the nature of the documents produced before the Caste
            Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the
            documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding
            Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny
            Committee in every case should not mechanically refer
            the case to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry
            including affinity test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell
            can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not
            satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.”

18.    Thus, on perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear

that the documents of pre-constitutional period showing the caste of

the applicant and his ancestor have got the highest probative value.

It is not the case of the respondents that these documents do not

belong to the ancestors of the petitioner, nor it is their case that these

documents are not genuine documents. All that the Committee has

said is that the entry ‘Thakur’ ipso facto does not show that the entry

belongs to Backward Class.



Wakodikar                                                            10/14
                                                         11-WP-9741-2007.doc


19.     Once there are documents which show that the caste of the

petitioner's great-grandfather, grandfather, and petitioner's father is

mentioned as ‘Thakur’, then those documents were having highest

probative value and that only on the ground that affinity test was not

applied, was no reason to discard the caste claim of the petitioner.


20.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the matter in the

case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti

(supra) observed that, only on the ground that the persons having

the surname ‘Thakur’ may belong to a forward caste as well was not

sufficient to send the case to Vigilance Cell.


21.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anand v.

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others 2,

has held that the affinity test is not a litmus test and the documents

of pre-constitutional era have got highest probative value in the eyes

of law.


22.     The Committee has grossly erred in relying only on the affinity

test and ignoring the documents of pre-constitutional era which were

relied by the petitioner.

2   (2012) 1 SCC 113

Wakodikar                                                           11/14
                                                           11-WP-9741-2007.doc


23.    In the present case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee while

exercising the power as a quasi-judicial authority, has committed a

serious jurisdictional error by relying upon the affinity test only and

discarding the pre-constitutional documents, which show the caste of

the petitioner as ‘Thakur’.


24.    The Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the judgment

passed in the matter of Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur v. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 25th February, 2026 in Writ Petition

No.7472 of 2021, has after relying upon the judgement of Lahu Dashrath

Thakur vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar

Region Nandurbar and others decided on 11.03.2025 in Writ Petition

No.9283 of 2012 and also replying on the judgement of the Division Bench

of this Court in the matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 11241 of 2012, has taken a view

that the there can be no such entries made in the year 1947-1948 indicating

the word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.


25.    The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 which was

issued by a notification dated 6th September 1950, for the first time

included the caste ‘Thakur’ in Entry 21 of the Tribal Community.



Wakodikar                                                             12/14
                                                         11-WP-9741-2007.doc


There was, therefore, no occasion that the word ‘Thakur’ in ‘Thakur

Schedule Tribe’ could be mentioned in the pre-constitutional

document. In this premise, it is highly impossible that there would be

mention of the word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ in any pre-

constitutional documents. The Court has also taken a view that

unless until there is some document to show that the petitioner

belongs to the upper caste, it would not be proper to reject the case

of the petitioner because the word ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ is not

mentioned in the entry of caste. In absence of any material to show

that the petitioner belongs to the upper caste ‘Thakur’, it would not

be proper to reject the caste claim of the petitioner.


26.    Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court, the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be

quashed and set aside. We further declare that the petitioner belongs

to the ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’. Hence, the following order:


                                   ORDER


       (i)   The impugned Judgment and Order dated 24 th December,

       2004 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and



Wakodikar                                                           13/14
                                                          11-WP-9741-2007.doc


       set aside.


       (ii)   The respondent is directed to be issued a Caste Validity

       Certificate in favor of the petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur

       Scheduled Tribe’ within a period of eight weeks from today.


       (iii) Writ petition No.9741 of 2007 is disposed of accordingly.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Wakodikar                                                            14/14