VILAS S/O NAGORAO DHANORKAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHA. THR. CHIEF SECRETARY, MUMBAI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-NAG:3750-DB
J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 1/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3366 OF 2020 WITH
WRIT PETITION No.3464 OF 2020
---------------------
WRIT PETITION No.3366 OF 2020
Mr. Dilip S/o Nagorao Dhanorkar,
Age-49 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
R/o. Gurudeo Nagar, Burande Lay-out,
Post Manas Mandir, Wardha, Tahsil Wardha,
District- Wardha – 442 001. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
th
6 Floor, Main Building,
State Secretariate, Mumbai, PIN 400032,
Telephone Nos. 022-22025042, 022-22028762,
Email Id: chiefsecretary@maharashtra.gov.in
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur, through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawn, Amravati Road,
Giripeth, Nagpur PIN 440001,
Phone No. 07122560031,
Email Id tcscngp.mah@nic.in
3. Zilha Parishad Wardha,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Office at Zilha Parishad Wardha,
Administrative Building,
Civil Lines, Wardha PIN 4420001,
e-mail Id: ceozpwardha@yahoo.co.in
Ph. No. 07152-240231, Fax 07152-241509.
4. District Education Officer (Primary),
Zilha Parishad Wardha,

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 2/16
Administrative Building,
Civil Lines, Wardha, PIN 4420001. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. A.S. Mardikar with Mr. S.D. Borkute, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M.S. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.3464 OF 2020
Mr. Vilas S/o Nagorao Dhanorkar,
Age-45 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
R/o. Vikas Nagar, Kondharli,
Post Kondhali, Tahsil Katol,
District- Nagpuur – 441 103. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
th
6 Floor, Main Building,
State Secretariate, Mumbai, PIN 400032,
Telephone Nos. 022-22025042, 022-22028762,
Email Id: chiefsecretary@maharashtra.gov.in
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur, through its Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawn, Amravati Road,
Giripeth, Nagpur PIN 440001,
Phone No. 07122560031,
tcscngp.mah@nic.in
Email Id
3. Zilha Parishad Wardha,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Office at Zilha Parishad Wardha,
Administrative Building,
Civil Lines, Wardha PIN 4420001,
e-mail Id: ceozpwardha@yahoo.co.in
Ph. No. 07152-240231, Fax 07152-241509.

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 3/16
4. District Education Officer (Primary),
Zilha Parishad Wardha,
Administrative Building,
Civil Lines, Wardha, PIN 4420001. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. A.S. Mardikar with Mr. S.D. Borkute, Advocate for Petitioner in
both petitions.
Mrs. M.S. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
in both petitions.
Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in both
petitions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 10 FEBRUARY, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 05 MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. Both the petitioners, Dilip Nagorao Dhanorkar (Writ
Petition No.3366/2020) and Vilas Nagorao Dhanorkar (Writ
Petition No.3464/2020), have filed these writ petitions challenging
the common order dated 11.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 2,
the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
(for short, ‘the Committee’), rejecting their caste claims as
belonging to Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe. Both petitioners further
challenge order dated 31.12.2019, passed by respondent
No. 3, Zilla Parishad, Wardha, whereby they were removed from

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 4/16
their respective permanent posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes and
reappointed on supernumerary posts for a fixed period of 11
months.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3366 of 2020 is Dilip
Nagorao Dhanorkar and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3464 of
2020 is Vilas Nagorao Dhanorkar. Both are brothers serving as
Assistant Teachers against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
Both petitioners’ employers submitted proposals for verification of
caste claims before the Committee on 20.07.2013, received by the
Committee on 27.09.2013. The claims were invalidate by the
Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 11/9/2020 which is
challenged in the present writ petition.
4. The petitioners submitted the following pre-
Constitutional documents in support of their caste claims :

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 5/16
impugned order is perverse and suffers from non-application of
mind. The Committee declared pre-Constitutional documents
dating back to 1911 as forged or fabricated without following the
procedure under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and without
presuming the genuineness of certified copies of public documents
as mandated under Section 79 thereof. It is further submitted that
the “Koshti” entries denote an occupation of weaving and not a
caste, Koshti having been introduced as an independent caste only
in 1995 vide Government Resolution in the Special Backward Class
category.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the
Committee’s reliance on area restriction under the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is wholly untenable, as the
Scheduled Castes and Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, which
came into force on 20.09.1976, repealed the said restriction under
Section 4 thereof, making Halba/Halbi a Scheduled Tribe for the
entire State of Maharashtra.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contend
that rejection solely on the ground of failure of the affinity test is
unsustainable, as no expert anthropological enquiry was conducted
and the documentary evidence spanning multiple generations
conclusively establishes tribal identity, rendering the affinity test

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 6/16
irrelevant. It is also submitted that the petitioners have placed on
record an affidavit of the local Bhat, Bhagwat Ghanshyam Wagh,
sworn-in on 05.09.2017, verified by the Archaeological Survey of
India, tracing the genealogy of the petitioners’ family as belonging
to “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, which the Committee has failed to
consider.
8. Reliance is placed on Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241; Dayaram
Vs. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333; Anand Vs. Scrutiny
Committee; Priya Parate, 2013 (1) MHLJ 180; Apoorva Nichale Vs.
Regional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J.
401; Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2023); and FCI Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira,
(2017) 8 SCC 670.

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 7/16
9. Per contra, Mrs. M.S. Naik, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply and
supported the order passed by the Committee. The Vigilance Cell
found the following documentary evidence in respect of blood
relatives of the petitioners :

10. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents
that the Vigilance Cell examined certain witnesses, including
Sukhdev Ganpat Dhanorkar, a blood relative of the petitioners, who
stated that the family belongs to the “Koshti” community. It is

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 8/16
further submitted that Snehal Dilip Dhanorkar, daughter of
petitioner Dilip Nagorao Dhanorkar, has obtained a Caste Validity
Certificate for “Koshti” under the Special Backward Class, supported
by an affidavit of the said petitioner dated 18.04.2016 and the
School Leaving Certificate of the petitioners’ father dated
09.07.1950 recording caste as “Koshti”. It is submitted that
“Koshti” is an independent caste enlisted in the Special Backward
Classes vide Government Resolution dated 07.12.1994 and bears no
similarity with the social and cultural traits of Halba/Halbi
Scheduled Tribe. Reliance is placed on Palghat Jilla Thandan
Saamudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and anther Vs. State of Kerala
and another (1994) 1 SCC 359 and Milind Katware Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1987 Mh.L.J. 572.
11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supported
the impugned orders. It is submitted that both petitioners were
appointed against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the
condition of producing valid caste certificates and that the
Committee vide common order dated 11.09.2020 held that the
petitioners belong to “Koshti” caste and not “Halba” Scheduled
Tribe. In view of judgment in Chairman & Managing Director, FCI
Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670 and Government
Resolution dated 21.12.2019, the order dated 31.12.2019 placing

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 9/16
both petitioners on supernumerary posts is legal and valid.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents
placed on record. The petitioners have submitted
pre-Constitutional documentary evidence dating back to 1911. The
Admission Extract of the petitioners’ grandfather Narayan Parasram
Halba dated 31.03.1911, his School Leaving Certificate dated
30.06.1921, and the birth extract (Kotwar Panji) of Baynabai dated
30.11.1939 all consistently record caste as “Halba”. The affidavit of
the local Bhat, Bhagwat Ghanshyam Wagh, sworn-in on 05.09.2017
and verified by the Archaeological Survey of India, further traces
the genealogy of the petitioners’ family as belonging to “Halba”
Scheduled Tribe. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994)
6 SCC 241; Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333; and
Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims
(2012) 1 SCC 113, pre-Constitutional documents carry highest
probative value and must be accorded due consideration while
examining caste claims. The Committee has, however, rejected the
aforesaid documents on the following grounds :
(a) The claim is rejected on the ground that the petitioners
failed to establish the affinity test, as they could not demonstrate

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 10/16
knowledge of the distinctive customs and traditions of the
community; furthermore, the evidence on record fails to place the
petitioners’ family within the geographical boundaries traditionally
associated with the community’s origin.
(b) That the Admission Extract dated 31.03.1911 suffers from
a discrepancy in handwriting, and the Kotwar Panji dated
30.11.1939, initially stated to be untraceable at the Tahsil Office,
Arvi, was, upon being subsequently obtained, also rejected on the
ground of handwriting discrepancy.
(c) That the documents relating to the petitioners’ father and
paternal aunts record caste as “Koshti” and a witness, Sukhdev
Ganpat Dhanorkar, a blood relative, stated that the family belongs
to the “Koshti” community; and
(d) That Snehal Dilip Dhanorkar, daughter of petitioner Dilip
Nagorao Dhanorkar, has obtained a Caste Validity Certificate for
“Koshti” under the Special Backward Class category, supported by
an affidavit of the said petitioner dated 18.04.2016.
We proceed to examine each of the aforesaid grounds.
13. As regards ground (a), the Committee has rejected the
petitioners’ claims primarily on the ground of failure to establish the
affinity test. It is a settled principle of law that when overwhelming
pre-Constitutional documentary evidence conclusively establishes

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 11/16
tribal identity spanning multiple generations, the affinity test
becomes irrelevant and superfluous. The affinity test mandates
expert anthropological enquiry by recording evidence of the
customs, usages, and practices of genuine tribal persons.
Admittedly, no such expert anthropological enquiry has been
conducted in the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2023) 16 SCC 415 has categorically held that the
affinity test is not a litmus test and cannot be conclusive either way,
and that authentic pre-Constitutional documents establishing
membership of a tribal community cannot be discarded. The
affinity test at best can supplement documentary evidence but can
never supplant it. Rejection of the claims solely on the ground of
failure of the affinity test, without proper expert enquiry and in the
face of conclusive documentary evidence, is manifestly perverse and
cannot be sustained in law.
14. Further, Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 on 18.09.1976, published in
the Official Gazette on 20.09.1976, whereby the provision of area
restriction imposed by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950 was expressly repealed under Section 4 thereof. The Scrutiny

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 12/16
Committee, therefore, could not have had recourse to the area
restriction envisaged by the 1950 Order, and any reliance thereon is
wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected outright.
15. As regards ground (b), the Scrutiny Committee has
discarded the Admission Extract dated 31.03.1911 solely on the
premise of an alleged discrepancy in handwriting. Such an
approach is legally untenable. It is well settled that the Scrutiny
Committee is not having any expertise to adjudicate upon questions
relating to handwriting or alleged fabrication. In the absence of any
opinion from a qualified handwriting expert, a conclusion finding of
interpolation or forgery based merely on visual comparison is
impermissible in law. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has
consistently observed that rejection of a document on the basis of
variance in handwriting, without any supporting material, is wholly
unsustainable and amounts to recording findings without
jurisdictional foundation. Insofar as the Kotwar Panji dated
30.11.1939 is concerned, the record reveals an inconsistent
approach on the part of the Committee. Initially, it was observed
that the original entry was not traceable in the office of the
Tahsildar, Arvi. Subsequently, upon securing the very document,
the Committee proceeded to reject it on the same ground of
handwriting variation. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 13/16
Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny (supra) and Kumari Madhuri
Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC
241, the oldest documents carry the greatest probative value and
must be given precedence over subsequent entries; any attempt to
discard them without cogent, expert-based reasons is impermissible
in law.
16. As regards ground (c), the Committee has placed
undue reliance on contra entries showing caste as “Koshti” in the
school and revenue records of the petitioners’ father and paternal
aunts. As held by this Court in Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled
Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others
2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 180, Halbis in the relevant districts who were
engaged in the profession of weaving were called “Koshti”. “Koshti”
denotes an occupation and not a caste, having been introduced as
an independent caste only in 1995. The contra entries pertain to
the period 1946–1954, a time when “Koshti” had no existence as an
independent caste, and are therefore attributable to occupation and
not caste.
17. This position is further fortified by the statement of
witness Bhushan Dhanorkar, examined by the Vigilance Cell, who
stated that the surname Dhanorkar; is common to both the Halba
and Navi communities, and the statement of witness Rajendra

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 14/16
Dhanorkar, who categorically stated that he belongs to the Halbi
caste and that “Koshti” was merely their profession. Significantly,
none of the witnesses examined by the Vigilance Cell have any
personal knowledge of the petitioners themselves, which renders
their statements of hardly any evidentiary value. The self-serving
oral statement of Sukhdev Ganpat Dhanorkar, standing alone,
cannot override documentary evidence spanning multiple
generations.
18. As regards ground (d), the Caste Validity Certificate for
“Koshti” obtained by Snehal Dilip Dhanorkar was predicated upon
an affidavit sworn by petitioner Dilip Nagorao Dhanorkar solely in
the context of his daughter’s caste claim and cannot be construed as
a conclusive admission as to the caste of the entire family. Each
caste claim is required to be adjudicated on its own merits on the
basis of the documentary evidence placed before the Committee.
The existence of a validity certificate for “Koshti” obtained by the
daughter of one of the petitioners, founded upon such an affidavit,
cannot override the pre-Constitutional documents establishing the
petitioners “Halba”tribal identity.
19. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
common order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Committee and the
order dated 31.12.2019 passed by respondent No. 3, impugned in

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 15/16
these petitions, are unsustainable in law and are liable to be
quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned common order dated 11.09.2020
passed by the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, rejecting the caste
claims of both petitioners is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) The impugned order dated 31.12.2019 passed by
Respondent No. 3, Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
removing both petitioners from their respective
permanent posts and placing them on
supernumerary posts is hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iv) The respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur is directed to issue validity certificates to
both petitioners certifying them as belonging to
Halba Scheduled Tribe within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(v) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to

J-wp3366.20&3464.20 final.odt 16/16
reinstate both petitioners to their respective
permanent posts forthwith upon issuance of the
validity certificates.
(vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no
order as to costs.
( NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. )
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/03/2026 17:38:50