Shirish Pandharinath Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra

2026 INSC 949
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 12938 OF 2020)

SHIRISH PANDHARINATH PATIL … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated
15.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
in Writ Petition (St.) No. 92659 of 2020, whereby the High Court
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed
the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2-
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for brevity
“Scrutiny Committee”) invalidating the caste claim of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAHUL KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.03
15:30:45 IST
Reason:
appellant as belonging to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe,
thereby cancelling and confiscating his caste certificate.
Page 1

3. The brief facts are that the appellant was issued a caste
certificate in the year 1984, certifying him as belonging to the
“Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the said caste
certificate, the appellant secured appointment as a Junior
Engineer (Civil) with respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai on 21.10.1994 and was subsequently
promoted in the year 1999. After misplacing the original caste
certificate, the appellant obtained a fresh caste certificate dated
21.10.2000 from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal
Division, certifying him as belonging to the “Tokare Koli”

Scheduled Tribe.
4. In the year 2008, the caste claim of the appellant was referred
by the respondent-employer for verification. The Police Vigilance
Cell submitted its report dated 16.09.2008, wherein reliance
was placed upon several old family records of the appellant in
which the caste of his paternal ancestors was recorded as “Koli”,
“Hindu Koli” and “Hindu Suryawanshi Koli”. A show-cause
notice dated 10.07.2009 was thereafter issued to the appellant,
who submitted his replies and representations.
Page 2

5. After several rounds of hearings and reconstitutions of the
Scrutiny Committee, the matter was ultimately listed on
02.01.2020. On the said date, the appellant did not appear in
person but submitted a written representation and sought an
adjournment on account of the non-availability of his advocate
and elderly family members. The request was rejected and the
matter was posted for orders. Thereafter, the Scrutiny
Committee, by order dated 27.07.2020, invalidated the Caste
Certificate dated 21.10.2000 and cancelled and confiscated the
same.

6. The appellant challenged the said order before the High Court,
inter alia , contending that the Scrutiny Committee had violated
the principles of natural justice by rejecting his request for
adjournment and had failed to properly consider the documents
produced by him, including the 7/12 extract of the family
agricultural land recording the land as “tribal land” and the
Caste Validity Certificate granted to his cousin, Vinod G.
Sonavane. It was also contended that the entries “Koli” and
Page 3

“Suryavanshi Koli” in the old family records of the appellant
cannot invalidate his claim of “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe.
7. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020
passed in Writ Petition (St.) No. 92659 of 2020, the High Court
declined to interfere with the order of the Scrutiny Committee
and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant had
been afforded sufficient opportunity during the prolonged
proceedings and that rejection of the adjournment application
dated 02.01.2020 had neither caused prejudice nor resulted in
violation of the principles of natural justice. On merits, relying
upon the pre-constitutional records of the grandfather and
father of the appellant, wherein their caste was recorded as
“Koli”, the High Court held that such records possessed high
probative value and rejected the claim of the appellant of
belonging to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe. The High Court
also accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee that the
Caste Validity Certificate granted to the cousin of the appellant,
Vinod G. Sonavane, had been obtained by misrepresentation.
Accordingly, finding no reason to interfere with the order dated
Page 4

27.07.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the High Court
dismissed the writ petition.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High
Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have made
their respective submissions on merits.
10. However, in light of the fact that the appellant has retired,
learned counsel for the appellant has alternatively prayed for
protection of the retiral and pensionary benefits of the
appellant. Further, the appellant has filed an affidavit dated
18.08.2026, wherein he has stated that he has retired on
30.06.2025 and no children and no member of his family has
availed any benefit on the basis of the impugned Caste
Certificate. Reliance was placed upon the order dated
01.04.2024 passed by this Court in Surekha Baljorsingh
Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr., Civil Appeal
No. 4586 of 2024 , wherein post-retirement benefits were
granted to the concerned individual, notwithstanding the
Page 5

annulment of the caste certificate, in exercise of the power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
considered the rival submissions, examined the material placed
on record and perused the order dated 27.07.2020 of the
Scrutiny Committee as well as the impugned judgment dated
15.09.2020 passed by the High Court. We find no error in the
conclusion reached by the Scrutiny Committee and affirmed by
the High Court in the impugned judgment.
12. However, having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and noting that the appellant entered service with
respondent No. 3 in the year 1994 and continued in service until
the date of his retirement on 30.06.2025, which is for more than
three decades, we consider it appropriate to ensure that the
appellant is not deprived of his retiral and pensionary benefits.
During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant continued in
service pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated
18.11.2021 and ultimately retired on attaining the age of
superannuation. Further, the appellant has placed on record
Page 6

his affidavit dated 18.08.2026, stating that he has no children
and that none of his family members has derived any benefit
from the caste certificate issued to him.
13. Generally, invalidation of a caste or tribe claim upon verification
would have consequences in law. However, this Court has
consistently recognized that, in exceptional circumstances
where equities of the case so warrant, the power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to do complete
justice. In the decision of Chairman and Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira & Ors., (2017) 8 SCC 670 , the three-judge bench
recognized that, although ordinarily an appointment secured on
the basis of an invalid caste or tribe certificate would not
survive, the Court may, in an appropriate case, exercise its
power under Article 142 to render complete justice. In the
subsequent decisions in R. Sundaram v. Tamil Nadu State
Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 287, and
Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee
& Anr. (supra), relief in respect of post-retirement benefits was
Page 7

extended to the individuals concerned notwithstanding the
annulment of their caste certificates.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we
are inclined to exercise our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, and accordingly, the service rendered by
the appellant with respondent No. 3 from 21.10.1994 until his
date of retirement on 30.06.2025 shall be protected for the
limited purpose of computation and release of his retiral and
pensionary benefits, in accordance with the applicable service
rules.

15. It is clarified that the protection granted hereinabove shall not
amount to validation or recognition of the claim of the appellant
of belonging to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe. Neither the
appellant nor any member of his family shall be entitled to claim
any future benefit on the basis of the invalidated caste
certificate.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal to the
extent stated hereinabove. We are of the view that the order
dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, insofar as
Page 8

it invalidates the claim of the appellant of belonging to the
“Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe, and the impugned judgment
dated 15.09.2020 passed by the High Court affirming the same,
do not warrant interference. The appellant will be entitled to the
retiral and pensionary benefits, which shall be processed and
released within a period of six months from the date of this
judgment.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

..........................J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]

…...........................J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
Page 9