Haris Amin Akbani vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

Heard learned counsel Shri Vedant Pandey for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs.H.N.Jaipurkar for the respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 20.4.2026 passed by the respondent (the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee) thereby invalidating his caste claim as belonging to “Kachhi Other Backward Classes (OBC).”

As per contentions of the petitioner, he belongs to caste “Kachhi” which is recognized as Other Backward Class in relation to the State of Maharashtra on 13.10.1967, which is at serial No.85 of the Constitutional Order, 1950. He has obtained Caste Certificate of “Kachhi” on 8.12.2025. He is a student and has given 12^th Board Examination of which result is awaited. It is submitted that he has appeared for NEET Examination on 3.5.2026 and the same examination earlier was cancelled and subsequently he appeared for the examination. For his further education, Caste Validity Certificate is required and, therefore, he approached the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee through his college on 1.1.2026 along with relevant documents. It is contended that he has placed on record copy of the Caste Certificate dated 23.10.2024, copy of genealogy tree by way of affidavit dated 30.12.2024, copy of admission register of the petitioner of 10^th Std. dated 26.6.2024, old document i.e. school leaving certificate of the petitioner’s grandfather namely Abdul Gani dated 1.7.1959, copy of birth certificate of great-grandfather Sattar Suleman Kachhi dated 22.2.1956, and copy of Caste Validity Certificate issued to his cousin brother Faizan. He has also placed on record admission extract of the petitioner’s grandfather’s sister namely Rukhsana of dated 3.7.1967. He submitted that document dated 3.7.1967, 22.2.1956, and 1.7.1959 are documents prior to the cut-off date. Moreover, the Caste Validity Certificate though granted in favour of cousin brother Faizan, it was not considered by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee and in violation of the decision of this court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, reported in (2010) 6 Mah LJ 401, the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the order impugned as well as the documents. He submitted that the Caste Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 8.12.2025. As the petitioner was in need of Caste Validity Certificate, his caste claim was forwarded. While forwarding the caste claim, the petitioner has placed reliance on family tree which is reproduced as under:

He submitted that as per the said family tree, Abdul Sattar Suleman, who was recorded as “Kachhi,” is his great-grandfather. He was having two sons i.e. Haroon Sattar Akbani and Gani Sattar Akbani and one daughter namely Rukhsana Sattar Akbani. Gani Sattar was having two sons Salim and Ameen. Faizan is son of Salim who is granted Caste Validity Certificate and the petitioner is son of Ameen Gani Akbani.

He further invited our attention towards the document i.e. school admission extract of Mohd.Haris Mohd.Ameen Gani Akbani who was admitted in the school on 26.6.2014 who was recorded as “Kachhi.” Ameen Gani Abdul Sattar was also recorded as “Kachhi” in his school admission from. As far as documents in connection with prior to the cut-off date i.e. 13.10.1967 is concerned, he placed reliance on school admission extract of Rukhsana Abdul Sattar Akbani who is sister of grandfather of the petitioner who admitted in the school on 5.5.1962 and admission is dated 30.6.1974 and her birth date is 5.5.1962 i.e. prior to the cut-off date who was also recorded as “Kachhi.” The other document which was recorded in the name of his grandfather Abdul Sattar who was recorded as “Kachhi” and birth certificate of his son Haroon was recorded as “Kachhi.” Thus, he submitted that there are consistent documents showing forefathers of the petitioner was recorded as “Kachhi.” He submitted that despite Caste Validity Certificate granted in favour of the cousin brother of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee and the said Committee invalidated the caste claim. For all above these grounds, he submitted that the order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has opposed the said contentions and submitted that in some of documents forefathers of the petitioner was recorded as Muslim and, therefore, considering the adverse entries against the name of the petitioner’s forefathers, the claim of the petitioner was invalidated and, therefore, no illegality is committed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

There is no dispute that the entry regarding the caste “Kachhi” was entered on 13.10.1967. Thus, the cut-off date is 13.10.1967. The documents prior to 13.10.1967 are having probative value. The documents in the name of Rukhsana Sattar Akbani, sister of the grandfather of the petitioner, who was admitted in school on 5.5.1962, who was recorded as “Kachhi.” Similarly, great-grandfather Abdul Sattar Suleman of the petitioner who gave birth to son Haroon, at the relevant time, said Abdul Sattar Suleman was recorded as ‘Kachhi.”

Thus, these documents prior to 13.10.1967 i.e. prior to the cut-off date are having higher probative value were recorded forefathers of the petitioner as “Kachhi.” The cousin brother of the petitioner was granted Caste Validity Certificate by the same respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee by relying upon the said document. However, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered this aspect while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. The Vigilance Report obtained by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee also supports the contention of the petitioner. The Vigilance Report has also collected document of 28.2.1956 wherein the great-grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as “Kachhi.” Similarly, Rukhsana, the sister of the grandfather of the petitioner, whose birth entry was also considered by the vigilance during the Vigilance Enquiry which was dated 5.5.1952. The only contention raised by the vigilance is that the entry in respect of the great-grandfather was in torn condition and, therefore, he could not verify the same. Even, if the said contention is accepted, there is one more document in the name of sister of the grandfather of the petitioner showing her caste “Kachhi.”

Thus, there is document prior to the cut-off date i.e. 13.10.1967 and, therefore, it has higher probative value. Except the above reasoning by the Vigilance that the document in the name of the great-grandfather was found in torn condition, the Committee has supported the said contention of the petitioner as it is specifically mentioned that culture which the petitioner and his family are following is the same which “Kachhi” community is following.

Thus, in that manner, the said Vigilance Report is supporting the petitioner’s case.

It is undisputed that on relying upon the same document, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued Caste Validity Certificate to the cousin brother of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the case of the petitioner is covered. It is held in the said case that “we thus came to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that 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 earlier caste certificate is tainted of fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.”

In the present case, the Caste Validity Certificate was issued to the cousin brother of the petitioner. It is nowhere contention of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee that earlier Caste Validity Certificate was obtained by fraud without jurisdiction. It was neither challenged nor it was cancelled by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee. As there is no observation that earlier Caste Validity Certificate is vitiated by fraud or without jurisdiction, in such circumstances, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot refuse to grant the Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

It is evident that as the Caste Validity Certificate is granted to the cousin brother of the petitioner on the basis of the similar documents, the order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.

A sum and substance in the entire material on record shows that the entry in the name of the petitioner’s great-grandfather has probative value. Similarly, the entry in the name of the sister of the grandfather of the petitioner is also having probative value and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:

The Writ Petition is allowed.

The order dated 20.4.2026 passed by the respondent -The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary and Deputy Director, Washim is hereby quashed and set aside.

It is declared that the petitioner belongs to “Kachhi OBC.”

The respondent – Committee shall issue Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner as belonging “Kachhi OBC” within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.