Mahendra S/O Manoharrao Hedau vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai

2026:BHC-NAG:6901-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3355 OF 2020
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3465 OF 2020
--
WRIT PETITION NO. 3355 OF 2020
Mr. Mahendra S/o Manoharrao Hedau,
Age- 52 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
R/o Plot No. 136, Shesh Nagar,
Near Gate No. 2, Bhawans Vidya Mandir
School, Shrikrushna Nagar, Nagpur-440009. …. PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
6th Floor, Main Building, State
Secretariat, Mumbai 400032, Telephone
Nos. 022-22025042, 022-22028762
Email Id: [email protected]
2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawn, Amravati Road,
Giripeth, Nagpur 440001,
Phone No. 07122560031,
Email Id: [email protected]
3) Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Office at Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001.
4) District Education Officer (Primary),
Zilha Parishad Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001. …. RESPONDENTS
WITH

Judgment 2 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 3465 OF 2020
Ms. Varsha D/o Sudhakarrao Hedau,
after marriage Mrs. Varsha W/o Vilas
Dhanorkar, age - 46 years,
O сс . Assistant Teacher,
R/o. Vikas Nagar, Kondhali,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. …. PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
6th Floor, Main Building, State
Secretariat, Mumbai 400032, Telephone
Nos. 022-22025042, 022-22028762
Email Id: [email protected]
2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawn, Amravati Road,
Giripeth, Nagpur 440001,
Phone No. 07122560031,
Email Id: [email protected]
3) Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Office at Zilha Parishad Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001.
4) District Education Officer (Primary),
Zilha Parishad Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001. …. RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. D.
Borkute, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. D. M. Kale, Advocate holding for Mrs. Usha Gujar,
Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment 3 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 20/04/2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 04/05/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission
by consent of the parties.
2. The facts and circumstances arising in Writ Petition
No. 3355/2020 and Writ Petition No. 3465/2020 are similar,
further the Petitioners in both these petitions are related.
Furthermore, the Respondent Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur has
passed a common impugned order of invalidation in both the
aforementioned petitions and therefore, both these petitions are
decided by this common judgment and Writ Petition No.
3355/2020 shall be treated as lead petition.
3. The Petitioners, by these petitions, are challenging
the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 2
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur thereby invalidating the tribe
claim of the Petitioners to the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe enlisted at

Judgment 4 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
Sr. No. 19 of the Constitution (Schedule Tribe) Order, 1950. The
petitioner in W.P. Np. 3355/2020 is further challenging the order
dated 27.12.2019 issued by Respondent No. 3- Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur, wherein the Petitioner was appointed on supernumerary
post for 11 months as per Government Resolution dated
21.12.2019.
4. The petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant
Teacher on 19.11.1996 and he is currently posted at Zilha
Parishad Primary School, Ajangaon, Teh. Mauda, District
Nagpur. The tribe claim of the Petitioner was submitted to the
Respondent No. 2 Committee along with all the relevant
documents on 26.07.2013.
5. The Petitioner has submitted various documents in
support of his tribe claim. Among the documents submitted by
the Petitioner, following are the documents before the
constitutional order of 1950:

Judgment 5 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt

6. The Respondent Committee has ordered Vigilance
Enquiry and the Vigilance Report was submitted on 05.10.2017.
Thereafter, the Petitioner was called for hearing, and the
Petitioner submitted his written explanation/reply on
30.11.2017.
7. During the pendency of the caste claim of the
petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 - Zilha Parishad, vide its
impugned order dated 27.12.2019 terminated the services of the
Petitioner and appointed him on supernumerary post for 11
months as per Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019. Owing
to this order dated 27.12.2019, the petitioner had approached
this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1083/2020 and sought
direction to Respondent No. 3 - Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur to
finalize the Claim of Tribe/Caste Validity of the petitioner
expeditiously and till finalization of her Scheduled Tribe claim,
sought the protection of her service. This Court, in Writ Petition.
No. 1083/2020 issued notices to the respondents returnable on

Judgment 6 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
21/04/2020 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the
caste claim of the Petitioner before the returnable date.
8. Per Contra, the Respondent No. 2 Committee in its
reply, submitted that the Petitioners failed to properly explain
the documents procured by the Vigilance cell, which contradicts
the claim of the Petitioners. It is further contended that the
Petitioners failed to establish socio-cultural affinity with the
‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the Respondent Committee
has rightly rejected the caste claim of the Petitioners.
9. The Respondent Committee, in Writ Petition No.
3465/2020, has relied upon following contra-entries obtained by
the Vigilance Cell in its inquiry:

Judgment 7 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
10. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance
of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the
authorities relied upon by their respective counsels.
11. For the sake of convenience, the Genealogy/Family
Tree submitted by the Petitioner is reproduced as under:
12. We treated the Writ Petition No.3355/2020 as a lead
petition and considered the facts involved therein. The
Petitioner’s proposal was forwarded for verification on
26.07.2013, thereafter, vigilance enquiry was conducted on

Judgment 8 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
05.10.2017. The Scrutiny Committee issued a show-cause notice
to the Petitioner on 27.10.2017. The Petitioner submitted his
explanation and reply on 30.11.2017. During the pendency of
caste claim of the Petitioner, The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur terminated the services of the Petitioner vide
its order dated 27.12.2019 and appointed on supernumerary
post for 11 months, as per Government Resolution dated
21.12.2019. Therefore, the Petitioner approached to this Court
by filing a Writ Petition No.1083/2020, seeking protection of his
service. This Court pleased to issue notice to the respondent
returnable on 21.04.2020 with direction to the Scrutiny
Committee to take decision on the caste claim of the Petitioner.
13. It appears that there is no consideration to the reply
filed by the Petitioner. It also appears that the vigilance cell
submitted its report in the month of September 2017, wherein it
had procured 3 entries of ‘Koshti’. The said report was
forwarded to the Petitioner and the Petitioner filed his reply on
30.11.2017. In reply, the Petitioner has submitted that there may
be some entries of ‘Koshti’, however, that is due to illiteracy of
the forefather of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the

Judgment 9 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
person belonging to ‘Halba’ tribe also adopted profession of
weaving and therefore, there is mention of ‘Koshti’, however, the
reliance is placed on the old documents i.e. 1904, 1909, 1914
and 1951 wherein the caste of the forefather of the Petitioner is
shown as Halba/Halbi. The vigilance cell also procured
documents wherein the caste is shown as ‘Halba’ for the years
1975 and 1982.
14. It is brought to our notice that while deciding the
Appeal in respect of applicants – Shri Saumya Mahendra Hedau
and Shri Gunjan Ranjit Hedau, nephew of the Petitioner, the
Scrutiny Committee has specifically observed in respect of
document of 1904 that the great grandfather of the applicants
i.e. Gopal Ganpati, in whose school record, the caste of Gopal
Ganpati is shown as ‘Halba’ and same was verified by the
Appellate authority from the original record. On the basis of this
document and other documents pertaining to year 1951 to
2018, the Committee has allowed the appeal and directed to
issue Caste Certificate to those nephews of the Petitioners and it
was subject to verification by the Committee. Thus, there is no
dispute in respect of document of 1904, which clearly shows the

Judgment 10 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
entry of ‘Halba’. This document is also produced by the present
Petitioner. In spite of this position, that the document of 1904
was duly verified from the original record by the Appellate
Authority, the Scrutiny Committee has observed with regard to
this document that there is a difference in ink and handwriting.
15. The Scrutiny Committee has referred as many as 12
documents alleging that these are persons who are in relation
with the Petitioner showing their caste as ‘Koshti’. However, on
perusal of the vigilance report, it reveals that there are only 3
documents pertaining to ‘Koshti’ and 2 documents pertaining to
‘Halba’ were procured by Vigilance Cell. As such, there is no
opportunity to the Petitioner to file his reply to the said
documents. May that as it may be, the oldest documents is of
1904, 1909 and 1914, which duly verified by the Appellate
Authority of Caste Scrutiny Committee from the original record.
The documents which are 12 in number were never supplied to
the Petitioner along with show cause notice, only vigilance
report was forwarded, wherein there is no reference of these
documents of Sr. No.1 to 12 (page-7 of the impugned order).
There were only 5 documents mentioned in the vigilance report,

Judgment 11 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
out of which, 3 documents pertaining to ‘Koshti’ and other 2
documents pertaining to ‘Halba’ caste.
16. It is also contention of the Petitioner that due to
illiteracy, they have mentioned caste as ‘Koshti’ as their
profession was weaving. However, the oldest document of 1904,
grandfather of the Petitioner is shown as ‘Halba’ and which is
duly verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It appears that
no consideration is given to this aspect. So far as affinity and
area restriction are concerned, no parameters were supplied as
demanded by the Petitioner to gauge the affinity connection of
the Petitioner to the caste Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner also
pointed out that the caste validity certificates obtained by his
cousin Shalini Hedau, Madhuri Hedau and nephew Pratik Hedau
were obtained without there being any vigilance. Those
certificates were declared as illegal and therefore, their
certificate holding them as ‘Koshti’ HBC cannot be considered in
the present matter.
17. It is submitted that there is no proper enquiry
conducted by the Research Officer, it was conducted through the
Police Superintendent, who is not having any knowledge in this

Judgment 12 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
subject. The Petitioner relied on the observation made in case of
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Thane reported in
SCC 1994 (6) 241 wherein it is held as under :
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence,
greater reliance may be placed on pre Independence
documents because they furnish a higher degree of
probative value to the declaration of status of a
caste, as compared to post-Independence
documents. In case the applicant is the first
generation ever to attend school, the availability of
any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but
that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his
claim. In fact the mere fact that he is the first
generation ever to attend school, some benefit of
doubt in favour of the applicant may be given.
Needless to add that in the event of doubt on the
credibility of a document, its veracity has to be
tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an
opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) 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, modernization 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,

Judgment 13 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his
present traits do not match his tribes’ peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies,
method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the
affinity test may be used to corroborate the
documentary evidence and should not be the sole
criteria to reject a claim.”
18. The Petitioner also placed reliance on “Tribes and
Castes of the Central Provinces of India” Vol – III, page 188,
wherein it is held that:
“Subsequently the Halbas served as soldiers in the
armies of the Ratanpur kings and their position no
doubt considerably improved, so that in Bastar they
became an important landholding caste. Some of
these soldiers may have migrated west and taken
service under the Gond kings of Chanda, and their
descendants may now be represented by the
Bhandara zamindars, who, however, if this theory be
correct, have entirely forgotten their origin. Others
took up weaving and have become amalgamated
with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar.”
19. It is submitted that in the Maharashtra, the person
having profession weaving used to be called as ‘Koshti’, but there
was no caste as ‘Koshti’ at the relevant time before 1950,
therefore, it has to be treated as profession ‘Koshti’ and most
important that oldest entry of 1904, which is duly verified from
the original record, it prevail over of the subsequent entries.

Judgment 14 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
20. The document of 1904 is certified copy as well as
duly verified by the then Committee from its original record. As
such, it has presumptive value as per Section 79 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The observation passed against this
document is patently perverse and erroneous. It also needs to be
noted here that the Petitioner placed on record copy of School
Leaving Certificate dated 25.05.1909, obtained from Zilla
Parishad School, Digras (Bk.) pertaining to Gopala Ganpati, the
grandfather of the Petitioner, wherein distinctly mentions the
Tribe or Tribal community of Gopala Ganpati as ‘Halba’. He was
student in Digras school from 01.08.1904 to 25.05.1909. It is
mentioned in the petition that the said school of Digras is for
just 2 km. away from the native place of Gopala i.e. Yerla. The
Digras school was established in the year 1865 and Yerla’s
school was established in the year 1909.
21. The Petitioner also placed on record document dated
27.04.1914, the Gift-deed, which was in possession of the local
Bhat. The Petitioner has learnt the historical evidence of his
family genealogy was being prepared and maintained by the
local Bhat for last 4 to 5 generations i.e. for about 200 to 300

Judgment 15 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
years, on the piece of leaf (Tadpatri), therefore, the said Bhat
duly sworn the affidavit before the Competent Authority having
crucial bearing in an enquiry of the Petitioner, whether she is a
person of tribes or tribal communities or part of or groups
within tribes or tribal communities of Scheduled Tribes. The said
affidavit of Bhagwat Ghanshyam Wagh, a local Bhat is placed on
record, which is pertaining to a peace of archaeological material
and verified by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is presently
in possession of the local Bhat by virtue of Gift-deed dated
27.04.1914 made by Vishwnath Bhagwanji Gurav, the original
Bhat. The said Gift-deed dated 27.04.1914 is annexed with the
petition and it is also part and parcel of the record.
22. The Letter of verification by the Assistant Director,
Archaeological Department, Nagpur was also placed on record.
From this document of 1914, it reveals that by way of gift-deed
Vishwanath Bhagwanji Gurav “Pustaki” gifted to one Sarubai
w/o Ishramji Pustki caste Gurav. He has maintained the
genealogy (family tree) in respect of Koshit @ Halbi in 38
Granthas written on Tadpatri. This document itself shows that
there is a reference of Halbi @ Koshti. Therefore what is claimed

Judgment 16 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
by the Petitioner is having substance that the ‘Koshti’ entry in the
record of some of the relatives needs to be treated as profession
as his forefathers chose to adopt the profession of weaving.
23. It also needs to be noted here that there was no caste
‘Koshti’ recognized till 1995 as SBC. In view thereof, even there
is an entry of ‘Koshti’ in some of the documents, it has to be
treated as profession. At any rate, the oldest document of 1904,
which was duly verified from the original by the then
Committee, which cannot be doubted and questioned and its
genuineness is already tested. The document of 1904 wherein
the caste is shown as ‘Halba’ even the document of 1909 the
caste is shown as ‘Halba’. The Gift-deed of 1914 makes it clear
that the person Bhat who used to maintain the lineage of ‘Halbi’
tribes specifically written as Halbi @ Koshti in the registered
gift-deed. It has evidentiary value because it is an archaeological
piece of evidence, which was duly certified by the Competent
authority of Archaeological department.
24. The Scrutiny Committee has not discussed about
these documents at all. This material piece of evidence was not
considered by the Committee specifically oldest documents will

Judgment 17 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
prevail over the subsequent documents. Even if there is an entry
of ‘Koshti’, the affidavit of said Bhat was simply brushed aside on
the ground that affidavit is not evidence. However, the Scrutiny
Committee failed to appreciate that the affidavit in respect of
the document, there is a certification of the Archaeological
Department, which is having a great probative value. Moreover,
the said gift-deed is registered on 27.04.1914.
25. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the
Petitioner have duly established that they are Halba/Halbi, as
their profession was weaving. The said Gift-deed of the Bhat is
registered one, it was duly registered in the year 1914. As such,
it is more than 100 years old document and, therefore, its
genuineness cannot be doubted.
26. As such, the impugned order passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee is patently erroneous, perverse and are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2020, passed in case
No. III and in case No.
lvk@vtizrl@ukx@ @1134@31@2013

Judgment 18 J-WP No.3355.2020+1.odt
lvk@vtizrl@ukx@ III @1133@31@2013] passed by the
Respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that
they belong to “Halba” Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to
issue the validity certificates of “Halba” Scheduled
Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks.
27. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/05/2026 10:37:30