YASHWANT S/O MANOHAR GHODMARE vs THE VICE-CHAIRMAN/ MEMBER SECRETARY, S.T. CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NAGPUR

2026:BHC-NAG:3391-DB
J-wp7398.23 final.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.7398 OF 2023
Yashwant S/o. Manohar Ghodmare,
Aged about 22 yrs.,
Occ. Student,
R/o. At-Post - Kalambi,
Tah. Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Narale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 12 FEBRUARY, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 25 FEBRUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and,
therefore, his claim for validation was forwarded to the Scrutiny
Committee along with necessary documents for the purpose of

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 2/10
verification. On 29.6.2019 the Police Vigilance Report came to be
submitted in case of the petitioner and on 30.7.2018 the Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the said invalidation, the petitioner
chose to challenge the same by filing a Writ Petition before this
Court in Writ Petition No.909/2021. On 14.11.2022 this Court
quashed and set aside the invalidation order and sent back the
matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the
petitioner afresh. After remand, on 26.4.2023 a fresh Police
th
vigilance report came to be submitted and on 20 June, 2023, the
petitioner submitted his reply to the said vigilance report.
Thereafter, on 19.7.2023, the Scrutiny Committee again invalidated
the caste claim of the petitioner. This order is assailed in the
present petition on various grounds.
4. We have heard Ms. Preeti Rane, leaned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us through
the record of the Scrutiny Committee submits that the Scrutiny
Committee has gravely failed in validating the caste claim of the
petitioner without considering the oldest and relevant documents.
She further submits that the finding of the Scrutiny Committee

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 3/10
regarding the documents of the year 1892 to 1896 that the said
document is not a conclusive proof because of some alleged contra
entries regarding the caste of the forefathers as ‘Kunbi’ is erroneous
since it does not consider the reply to the vigilance report in which
the petitioner has specifically denied the relationship. It is her
further submission that as far as affinity test is concerned, a
detailed reply was also filed to the same, which is also not
considered. It is her submission that the entire exercise has been
done with a pre-determined mind to reject the caste claim. She
further submits that the validity certificate granted to her real
brother has not also been considered by the Scrutiny Committee,
which was a decisive factor.
6. Per contra, Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent supports the finding of the
Scrutiny Committee. He submits that high reliance was placed by
the petitioner on land record of the year 1892 to 1896, but it was
found in the vigilance inquiry that the caste of ‘Ziblya Shama Mana’
was recorded as ‘Kunbi’ which fact is suppressed by the petitioner.
He further submits that there are various contra entries which
records caste as ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Mani Kunbi Hindu’, and ‘Mani
Kunbi’. Thus, the caste claim, in view of the said various contra
entries, is suspicious and, therefore, no conclusive findings could

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 4/10
have been reached by the Scrutiny Committee. He further submits
the document of school leaving certificate of the petitioner cousin
great grand-father Shankar Zibal shows caste as ‘Mana’, but the
school register shows otherwise. He, therefore, supports the
impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.
7. We have carefully perused the record of the matter and
also considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for the
respective parties. As can be seen from the order impugned, the
relevant documents are as under :
S.
N
Type of document Name Relation
with the
applicant
Caste
mentio
ned
Date of
evidence
Remarks
1 P-6, No.10, Account
No. 35, Nagpur
Settlement
Zibal
Kunbi
Great-great
grandfather
Kunbi 1892-96 Found in
vigilance
enquiry
3 P-6, No.10, Account
No. 35. Nagpur
Settlement
Ziblya S/o
Shama
Mana
----- Mana 1892-96 Submitted
by
applicant
8 School record Higher
Pri. School, Adm.
No. 17, Kalambi, Tq.
Kalmeshwar, Distt.
Nagpur
Shankar
Zibal
Cousin
great
grandfather
Kunbi
Mana
18.09.1922
(date of adm.)
st
(1 Std.)
01.11.1917
(Date of birth)
Found in
vigilance
enquiry
9 School record Higher
Pri. School, Adm.
No.17 A, Kalambi,
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Distt. Nagpur
Shankar
Zibal
Cousin
great
grandfather
Mani
Kunbi
15.06.1929
th
4 Std.
02.11.1917
(date of birth)
Submitted
by
applicant
10 School record Higher
Pri. School, Adm.
No.17, Kalambi, Tq.
Kalmeshwar Dist.
Nagpur
Shankar
Zibal
Cousin
great
grandfather
Mani
Kunbi
Hindu
18.09.1922
(date of adm.)
31.01.1929
(date of
leaving)
rd
(3 Std.)
Found in
vigilance
enquiry

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 5/10
11 School Leaving
Certificate, Higher
Pri. School, Kalambi
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Dist. Nagpur, Adm.
No. 17
Shankar
Zibal
Cousin
great
grandfather
Mana 18.09.1922
(date of adm.)
31.01.1929
(date of
leaving)
rd
(3 Std.)
Submitted
by
applicant
12 School record Higher
Pri. School, Kalambi,
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Distt. Nagpur
Deorao
Ganpat s/o.
Zibal
Ghodmare
Cousin
grandfather
Kunbi 01.04.1946
(date of adm.)
01.03.1939
(date of birth)
Found in
vigilance
enquiry
13 Declaration made
during adm., Higher
Pri. School, Kalambi,
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Dist. Nagpur
Deorao
Ganpat
Ghodmare
Cousin
grandfather
Kunbi 01.04.1946 Submitted
by H.M.
during
hearing
14 School record Higher
Pri. School, Kalambi,
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Distt. Nagpur
Bhaurao
Ganpat s/o.
Zibal
Ghodmare
Real
grandfather
Kunbi 01.04.1946 Found in
vigilance
enquiry
15 Declaration made
during adm., Higher
Pri. School, Kalambi,
Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Dist. Nagpur
Bhaurao
Ganpat
Ghodmare
Real
grandfather
Kunbi 01.04.1946 Submitted
by H.M.
during
hearing
8. The petitioner placed reliance on these documents and
some documents were also found in the Vigilance Cell. As far as
document No.1 is concerned, it makes a remark that it is found in
vigilance inquiry. We have perused the said document which is at
page 36. The said document admittedly pertains to account No.35
which clearly shows ‘Mana’.
9. What is interesting to note that the document Nos.1
and 3 in the above table is one and the same document as account
No.35 is shown in both documents. But as can be seen from the
above table, the document No.3 shows caste as ‘Mana’, but the

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 6/10
Scrutiny Committee has recorded it as ‘Kunbi’. Thus, the findings of
the Scrutiny Committee apart from being contrary to the record are
clearly erroneous since it relies on the same document submitted by
the applicant showing caste as ‘Mana’ but goes on to record in the
impugned order that the same is ‘Kunbi’. Thus, the said finding is
entirely perverse.
10. As far as documents at Sr. No.8 to 11 are concerned, a
careful and minute perusal of the said documents reveal that those
are the same person Shankar Zibal, who happens to be a cousin
great grand-father of the petitioner. What is interesting to note and
as also can be seen from the chart above that the caste column
mentions different caste of the same person. We are at pains to
understand how a caste of a person would change with respect to
the said document. When being confronted, learned Assistant
Government Pleader submits that these four documents pertain to
different classes i.e. in different standards when the person was
studying. Even this explanation by the Assistant Government
Pleader falls flat on the ground since the documents mentioned at
Sr. Nos.10 and 11 of above table pertain to the same standard i.e.
third standard and the caste mentioned is different. It seems that
the Scrutiny Committee is hell-bent to reject the claim of the
petitioner and has chosen to multiply the entries of a single person.

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 7/10
The said document is also placed on record and we have perused
the same. The said document clearly shows that the caste of the
person concerned is ‘Mana’.
11. We were not able to come across any document of
Shankar Zibel showing the caste as mentioned in Sr.Nos.8,9 and 10.
Thus, the approach of the Scrutiny Committee in multiplying the
entries of a single document to create a farce that there are various
contra entries against the petitioner is an exercise which is highly
deprecated and should involve serious consequences.
12. The Scrutiny Committee seems to have lost sight of the
fact that the object of its formation is to investigate the caste claim
within the parameters laid down by the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste
Certificates Act, 2000 and as enunciated by this Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. But it seems that the
Scrutiny Committee is acting exactly contrary to the said object and
seeing to it that the claims are somehow rejected by placing
reliance on documents which are either not in existence or if in
existence have less or no probative value. Time and again, we are
coming across the cases like the present one and case of multiplying

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 8/10
entries of a single person for different classes in which he is
studying is nothing but an exercise to deprive genuine claims like
that of the petitioner.
13. As can be further be seen from the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner in its reply has specifically
denied that as far as Ziblya brother Punjya s/o. Zingu Kunbi is not
related to the applicant nor he is any way concern with the same.
This aspect has also not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee
and placing reliance on uncalled documents rejected the caste claim
of the petitioner.
14. Furthermore, as far as reliance of the Scrutiny
Committee on a declaration made during admission by one Deorao
Ganpat Ghodmare submitted the Head-Master of primary School
Kalambi, Taluka Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur is concerned, the
same also seems to be erroneous for reasons stated below. Firstly,
the declaration submitted by the said Head-Master was never put to
the petitioner so that he can reply the same. Furthermore, entry
Nos.14 and 15 are one and the same entry.
15. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee has continued in its
exercise of multiplying the entries so that the number of contra
entries is increased. Thus, in our view is clearly erroneous and as
stated above the Scrutiny Committee needs to be imposed with

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 9/10
costs that would act as a deterrent. Thus, the order of the Scrutiny
Committee is nothing but a farce created to multiply the entries as
has been stated above.
16. We are, therefore of the considered opinion that the
order of the Scrutiny Committee cannot withstand the scrutiny of
law and the same warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. We,
therefore, pass the following order :
O R D E R
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 19.7.2023, passed in Case
No.JC/TCSC/NGP/I/243/31/2017, by the respondent
is quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to
‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and the Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur is directed to issue validity certificate to the
petitioner within four weeks from the date of order.
(iv) In view of the findings recorded above, we think it fit
to impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur to be paid to the petitioner within
four weeks from the date of this order.
(v) If the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur fails to pay the costs
to the petitioner within the time as stipulated above,
the same may be recovered by the Registry of this
Court, as fine imposed, in accordance with the Rules.
(vi) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

J-wp7398.23 final.odt 10/10
17. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
( NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. )
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/02/2026 18:46:14