Nilesh vs The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim & Anr.

JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

Heard learned counsel Shri Tejas Deshpande; learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri V.A.Thakare for respondent No.1, and learned counsel Shri P.N.Atkar for respondent No.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dared 8.1.2026 passed by respondent No.1 - The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim (respondent No.1 -Committee) invalidating his caste claim belonging to “Mathura Labhan” as Denotified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis-A) .

As per contentions of the petitioner, he belongs to caste “Mathura Labhan” as Denotified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis-A). The Competent Authority has issued him Caste Certificate dated 12.1.2015 certifying that he belongs to caste “Mathura Labhan” recognized as “Vimukta Jati-A”. His caste claim was forwarded for validation on 13.8.2025. It is his contention that, he came to be appointed on 26.5.2025 after a due process of law on the post of Peon in respondent No.2 -Agricultural Produce Market Committee, district Washim. As per appointment order dated 26.5.2025, he was directed to furnish Caste Validity Certificate and, therefore, his claim was forwarded for validation along with various documents. It is contended by the petitioner that despite there are documents prior to cut-off date i.e. 21.11.1961, respondent No.1 – Committee has not considered the same and invalidated his caste claim only on ground that there was entries in documents not as “Mathura Labhan” but “Mathure Labhani” which is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the said contentions and invited our attention towards fact that by order dated 21.11.1961, caste “Mathura Labhan” was declared as Vimukta Jatis-A. He submitted that prior to the said cut-off date, grandfather of the petitioner namely “Kasandas Dagdu” was recorded as “Mathure Labhani” and, thereafter, there are consistent documents showing forefathers of the petitioner belonging to caste “Mathura Labhan.” He further invited our attention towards fact that respondent No.1 – Committee has already issued Caste Validity Certificates to a real brother of the petitioner namely “Pravin Chhagan Sable” and cousin brother namely “Nitesh Jawansingh Sable.” He submitted that respondent No.1 – Committee has neither cancelled the said Caste Validity Certificates nor those Caste Certificates were challenged. Therefore, in view of the decision, in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur and anr, reported in (2010)6, the petitioner is entitled to be issued Caste Validity Certificate. However, this aspect is also not considered by respondent No.1 – Committee and, therefore, the order impugned passed by respondent No.1 – Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – Committee has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there are contra entries. The entry in the name of grandfather is not “Mathura Labhan,” but it is “Mathure Labhani” and, therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish his caste claim and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard both the sides and perusing the record available, it reveals that the caste claim of the petitioner was referred for Vigilance Enquiry. The Vigilance Report is before this court. The said Vigilance Report nowhere disputes documents issued prior to cut-off date i.e. 21.11.1961. The grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as belonging to caste “Mathure Labhani.” The Vigilance Report, as far as affinity test is concerned, shows that culture of the petitioner does not match with culture of caste “Mathura Labhan” and, therefore, an adverse report is given to the extent of the affinity test.

Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has produced Family Tree, which shows that the grandfather of the petitioner namely “Kasandas Dagdu” was recorded as “Mathure Labhani” who was having three sons “Chhagan”, “Gobarsingh”, and “Jawansingh.” The petitioner is the son of “Chhagan.” Real brother “Pravin” and cousin brother “Nitesh” of the petitioner were also granted Caste Validity Certificates on the basis of the similar documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rajendra vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, thr.its Chairman and ors, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2463 wherein this court has considered aspect of entries regarding “Mathure Labhani” and “Mathura Labhan” and in paragraph No.15 it is observed

This court also considers has also considered the decision in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) wherein

Here, in the present case, Caste Validity Certificates are issued to the petitioner’s real and cousin brothers. Respondent No.1 – Committee cannot blow hot and cold at the same breathe and such contradictory conduct renders the impugned order liable to be quashed on this ground itself.

Thus, in view of above observations by this court, in the present case also, Caste Validity Certificates are already issued and now respondent No.1 – Committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that while granting Caste Validity Certificates to real and cousin brothers of the petitioner, Vigilance Enquiry was not conducted. As observed by this court, we are agree with the view taken in the said judgment and we do not have any other reasons than to take other view and, therefore, respondent No.1 – Committee which earlier chose not to have Vigilance Enquiry in case of the petitioner’s brother, the same ground cannot be taken to deny the benefit of Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner.

Another ground raised by respondent No.1 – Committee for denying the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner is “the affinity test.” The said aspect is already considered by this court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal vs. Starte of Maharashtra, (2003)3 MhLJ 513 and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 16 SCC 415 wherein it has been held that, the detailed guidelines for evaluation of affinity of members of the Mana Scheduled Tribes which the scrutiny committee has failed to follow. It is further held that pre-constitutional established claim of the blood relatives. The same ought to be accepted as clinching evidence. The pre-independence documents of school leaving certificate of the petitioner’s grandfather as “Mathure Labhani” is clinching piece of evidence which the respondent No.1 – Committee has failed to appreciate in its proper perspective.

In the case of Anand vs. Committee and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2012(1) SCC 113 it is observed that, “while applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that they are not following the culture and they were following the other culture. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.

In view of the above observations, in the present case, as Caste Validity Certificates are already issued to petitioner’s real and cousin brothers, in view of the decision of this court, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of Caste Validity Certificate that he belongs to caste to “Mathura Labhan” as Denotified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis-A) and, therefore, the order of respondent No.1 – Committee requires to be quashed and set aside.

In this view of the matter, we proceed to pass following order:

The Writ Petition is allowed.

The order dated 8.1.2026 passed by respondent No.1 -The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim is hereby quashed and set side.

The petitioner is declared as belonging to caste “Mathura Labhan” ” as Denotified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis-A) .

Respondent No.1 – Committee shall issue the petitioner Caste Validity Certificate declaring him that he belongs to caste “Mathura Labhan” Denotified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis-A).

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