Sheetal Satish Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:22836-DB
1 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13224 OF 2023
Sheetal d/o Satish Thakur,
Age 33 years, Occ. Service
Original R/o Shendurni,
Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
Presently residing at- Plot No.10,
Saptashrungi Niwas, Vidyanagar,
Near Lilavati Hospital, Makhmalabad Road,
Nashik-422003, Tq. & Dist. Nashik ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
Through its Secretary
2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Dhule Division, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
Through its Member Secretary.
3] The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Head Office,
New India Assurance Building,
87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
Through its Deputy General Manager.
4] The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
nd
Regional Office, Sharda Center, 2 Floor,
Behind Tal Stop, Karve Road,
Pune-411004.
Through its Regional Manager (HRM) ... Respondents

WITH

2 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 2012
Rohit s/o Sanjay Thakur
Age: 20 years, Occ: Student,
R/o: Shendurni, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 32.
2. The Committee for Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim,
Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar.
3. North Maharashtra University
Jalgaon, through its Registrar.
4. Shramsadhna Bombay Trust’s,
College of Engineering and Technical,
Wambhori, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents

Mr. Sushant C. Yaramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 13224 of
2023.
Mr. Kalyan Patil Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 1922 of 2012
AGP for Repondent No. 1 and 2 : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale
Advocate for Respondent No.3 and 4 in WP/13224/2023: Mr. A.D. Dale h/f
S.S. Rathi

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

3 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

RESERVED ON: 05.05.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 09.06.2026

JUDGMENT : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. Since, a common question of fact and the law is involved in both these
Writ Petitions, those are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13224 of 2023 and Writ Petition
No.1922 of 2012 are niece and uncle respectively. The petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 13224 of 2023 is challenging the order dated 02.07.2019 passed
by the Respondent No.2/The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Dhule Division, Dhule whereas, the petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 1922 of 2012 is challenging the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the
Respondent No.2/The Committee for Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
and Verification of Tribe Claim, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar (Herein after
called as “Respondent No. 2/ Scrutiny Committee”) by which the tribe claims
of the petitioners of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe have been
invalidated.
4. In order to avoid the repetition of the factual aspects, we propose to
decide Writ Petition No.13224 of 2023 as a ‘Lead Petition’.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
submitted her tribe certificate of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe

4 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

issued by the competent authority for its verification to the Respondent
No.2/Scrutiny Committee. He submits that, the petitioner produced
following documents in support of her tribe claim of belonging to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe.
Sr.
No.
Type of Document Name Relations
Caste Date of
evidence
Remark
hip by
blood
with
Applicant
1 School record of
village Shendurni,
Namdeo
Great
Grandfat
Thakur 03.02.1912
-
Sukha
Thakur
Balwarga
Tq. Jamner, Dist.
her
Jalgaon
2 School record of
village Shendurni,
Baburao
Namdeo
Grandfat
Thakur 01.05.1940
st
1 Std
her
Tq. Jamner, Dist.
Thakur
Jalgaon
3 School record of
village Shendurni,
Satish
Baburao
Father Thakur 02.07.1966
st
1 Std
Tq. Jamner, Dist.
Thakur
Jalgaon
4 School record of
village Shendurni,
Sanjayku
Second
Hindu
23.06.1969 Record
found in
mar
Arjunrao
Saindane
Cousin
Other
Backwa
Tq. Jamner, Dist.
Uncle
validity
holder’s
own case
5 School record of
school of St. John’s
Jalgaon
rd
Thakur
Shital
Satish
Thakur
Applicant Thakur 05.06.2000
th
5 Std
high School,
Aurangabad
6. He would submit that despite having produced oldest documents of
pre-constitutional era having higher probative value, the Respondent
No.2/Scrutiny Committee discarded those documents solely on the basis of
subsequent contra entries and on the ground that the ‘Thakur’ caste is also

5 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

synonyms to other forward castes and therefore, it cannot be ascertained
from the documents produced by the petitioner that the ‘Thakur’ caste which
the petitioner belongs to is a Scheduled Tribe. He would further submit that,
the Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee also committed an error by laying
emphasis on the affinity test to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. He
therefore, urged that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be
quashed and set-aside by directing the Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee
to issue validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe.
7. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that though the petitioner
placed on record the documents referred herein above, however, during the
vigilance cell inquiry, document pertaining to school record of petitioner’s
Maternal Cousin Grandfather namely Dattu Fakira Thakur dated 06.07.1953
was found showing his caste as ‘Bhat’. He therefore, submits that based on
this contra entry the Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe
claim of the petitioner. He invited attention of this Court to the document
collected during the vigilance cell enquiry details of which is as follows :
Sr.
No.
Type of Document Name Relationship
Caste Date of
evidence
Remark
by blood
with
Applicant
1 School record of
Dattu
Fakira
Thakur
Applicant’s
Bhat 06.07.195
Record
Found in
vigilance
village Songir
Tq. , Dist Dhule
Maternal
3
th
7 Std
Cousin
Grandfather
inquiry
8. He would further submit that, the petitioner also failed in affinity test
as she could not satisfy the aspect with regard to Anthropological traits,
Ethnic linkage, Dialect as well as place of residence. He strenuously contend
that if the claimant fails to produce the oldest documents of pre-

6 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

constitutional era or if the documents produced by the claimant are found
insufficient to ascertain the caste/tribe claim, the Scrutiny Committee would
be justified in relying upon the affinity test. He thus, submit that the
petitioner has failed in affinity test to substantiate that the petitioner belongs
to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. He therefore, urged that the Writ Petition is
devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP, we find that while
submitting the tribe claim, petitioner has relied on the pre-constitutional
documents i.e (i) school record of her great grandfather viz. Namdeo Sukha
Thakur dated 03.02.1912, (ii) school record of her grandfather viz. Baburao
Namdeo Thakur dated 01.05.1940. In both these documents, the caste
mentioned is ‘Thakur’. We find that in vigilance cell enquiry, the vigilance cell
did not express anything adverse about these documents. The Scrutiny
Committee however, relied on a document pertaining to school record of
petitioner’s Maternal Cousin Grandfather viz. Dattu Fakira Thakur dated
06.07.1953 showing his caste as ‘Bhat’. We find that this one adverse entry is
tried to be shown as an incriminating factor against the petitioner.
10. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Veena Ashok Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.19968 of 2017 wherein while dealing with
almost similar issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus :
“ The appellant herein belongs to 'Wani' community which falls
under 'Other Backward Classes' category. The appellant has
relied upon the documents issued by Zilla Parishad Primary

7 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

School, Jeur (B) District Ahmednagar in the year 1922 which
is a School Leaving Certificate in the name of Shankar
Mahadev Godase wherein the caste of the appellant's great
grandfather was mentioned as 'Hindu Wani'. The appellant has
also relied upon the certificate issued by the authorities in
respect of her cousin uncle, grandfather and cousin
grandfather and her sister wherein the caste has been recorded
as 'Wani' Merely because her grandfather subsequently in the
year 1944 got his caste mentioned as 'Kulwnt Wani’ and
accordingly father of the appellant and brothers of the
appellant had also mentioned caste as 'Kulwant Wani', it does
not mean that the appellant would become a member of the
'Kulwant Wani' caste. For the simple reason that they are the
off springs of her great grandfather who had been recorded as
belonging to 'Hindu Wani' caste in the year 1922 as per the
School Leaving Certificate issued.
We may mention here that this Court in the case of
Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 in paragraph
22 has specifically held that 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 status of documents.
The document furnished in respect of great grandfather
is of the year 1922 and therefore it has to be relied upon.
Likewise, the observation made by the High Court that as the
appellant is married in a caste which is not known, may be

8 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

forward class that does not hold the field.”
11. We thus find that, when the documents pertaining to pre-
constitutional era of the year 1912 and 1940 shows the caste of petitioner's
forefathers of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, the subsequent entry of
the year 1953 in respect of one of his blood relative showing the caste as
‘Bhat’ does not mean that the petitioner would become a member of said
‘Bhat’ caste. This is for a simple reason that these earlier two documents
which are in favour of the petitioner that too of pre- constitutional era will
definitely have a higher degree of probative value than the subsequent
document. We thus, find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Veena Ashok
Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane (supra).
12. Though, it is sought to be contended by learned AGP that merely
placing reliance on the documents showing the caste as ‘Thakur’, ipso facto
does not mean that the petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe when
‘Thakur’ caste is also shown in forward castes; however, the coordinate
bench of this court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur vs. Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region Nandurbar and others
decided on 11.03.2025 in Writ Petition No.9283 of 2012 relying on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 11241 of 2012, has dealt with
the similar issue. The relevant observations of this Court in the case of Lahu
Dashrath Thakur (supra) and more particularly paragraph No.9 which reads
thus :
“9. …………………………………………………….
In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decision
of the Division Bench in the matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs.

9 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.11241/2012.
The coordinate bench had occasion to deal with the issue that if only
Thakur is mentioned as caste in pre-constitutional document, then
what would be the consequences. We reproduce paragraph nos. 3, 4,
5 and 6:
3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be
necessary to make a reference to the impugned judgment and
order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has referred to the school
record of the Petitioner’s father which discloses that in the year
1948, his caste was recorded as “Thakur”. The Scrutiny
Committee has also referred to the death extract of the grand
father of the Petitioner which shows that in the year 1947, his
caste has been shown as “Thakur”. The third important
document referred to by the Scrutiny Committee is the service
book of the Petitioner’s father which shows that his caste was
“Thakur”. These three documents have been brushed aside by
the Scrutiny Committee by making following observations:
As said earlier, the only caste entry as Thakur
does not clarifies whether the incumbent
belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or Thakur,
non-tribal group. Hence, though the document
is oldest, the same cannot be treated as
conclusive in nature while determining the tribe
claim of the applicant.
4. We fail to understand as to how the Caste Scrutiny
Committee expects. the documents of the years 1947-1948
to mention as to whether the caste "Thakur" belongs to the
category of Scheduled Tribe or the category of non-tribal.
In the years 1947-1948, such entries could not have been
made. Another finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the
Petitioner could not establish his affinity to the caste and to
the area. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a
reference to what is held by the Apex Court in the case of
Anand (supra) in Paragraph 22. The Paragraph 22 of the
said decision reads thus:
“"18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted
paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has
to be considered not only on a thorough examination
of the documents submitted in support of the claim
but also on the affinity test, which would include the
anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the
applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable

10 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied
mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless,
we feel that the following broad parameters could be
kept in view while dealing with a caste claim:
(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 a 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,
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 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."

11 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

(Underlines added)
5. The Apex Court has held that the affinity test may be
used to corroborate the documentary evidence but should
not be the sole criteria to reject the caste claim.
6. In the present case, three material documents which we
have referred to earlier have been brushed aside by the
Scrutiny Committee by recording reasons which are not at
all justified and thus, the claim is rejected primarily on the
basis of the affinity test. In view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra), only on the
basis of the affinity test, the caste claim of the Petitioner
could not have been rejected."
13. It would also be apt to refer to paragraph No.10 of the Judgment of
Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) which reads thus :
“10. The present case is squarely covered by the principles laid
down by the coordinate bench referring to the decision of
Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (supra).
Even reliance on the affinity test cannot be a sole criteria to
reject the claim. The finding recorded by the Committee for
discarding the pre-constitutional record is perverse which is
appearing on page no.48 of the paper-book.”
14. As far as contention of learned AGP regarding various categories of
Scheduled Tribe with synonymity is concerned, no doubt the Scrutiny
Committee has relied on five categories of caste ‘Thakur’ however, we are
concerned with Serial No.1 as it refers to ‘Thakur’ which is found at Serial
No.44 of the Constitutional Order. Serial Nos.2 and 3 are ‘Thakar’ and
therefore, they are irrelevant. Serial Nos.4 and 5 refers to ‘Thakur’ of forward
castes or some other caste.
15. With regard to the aforesaid aspect, we are of the considered view
that, there was no occasion for either the petitioner or his forefathers to

12 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

fraudulently record their caste as ‘Thakur’ so as to claim themselves of
belonging to Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’. In the light of documents of pre-
constitutional era, we are of the considered view that the petitioner and her
forefathers have to be treated as Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’ in absence of any
material to show that they belong to the forward castes ‘Thakur’, more so
when we have already held that a subsequent entry showing the caste of
petitioner's maternal cousin grandfather as ‘Bhat’, cannot discard the
previous entries showing the caste of petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe.
16. Last but not the least, to buttress his submission that, the Scrutiny
Committee can take affinity test as one of the relevant factor for invalidation
of tribe claim, learned AGP has placed reliance on the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023
(16) SCC 415 as well as the subsequent order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court dated 12.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.,
17. In that regard, it would be profitable to rely on the observations of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and more particularly in paragraph No. 21 which
reads thus:
“21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of
2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case"), the Full Bench of the
Bombay High Court has noted that people having the
surname "Thakur" belong to both forward castes and
various backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be
right in saying that in every case, only on the basis of the
surname Thakur, it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny
Committee that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe

13 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

Thakur notified in the Entry 44 of the Maharashtra list.
However, we must note that in the case of a person having
the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of
entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled
Tribe in the land records, school or college records or any
official records concerning the applicant or his ancestors.
Only on the ground that the persons having the surname
Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not
necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee
should send the case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the
nature of the documents produced before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the
documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding
Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee in every case should not mechanically refer the
case to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry
including affinity test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell
can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
with the material produced by the applicant.”
18. It is clear from the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court
that it would depend on the nature of the document produced before the
Scrutiny Committee for referring the matter to the vigilance cell enquiry. We
have already observed that the documents pertaining to 1912 and 1940
cannot be brushed aside which unequivocally shows the tribe claim of
petitioner’s forefathers of pertaining to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. In that
view of the matter we find that, the affinity test could not have been applied
as a sole criteria for invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. We
therefore, do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned AGP in
that regard.
19. In view of above discussion, we find that the Respondent
No.2/Scrutiny Committee has committed an error while passing the
impugned order thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of
belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. We therefore, are inclined to allow

14 984. Civil WP.13224-2023.odt

the Writ Petition.
20. Since, we are inclined to allow Writ Petition No.13224 of 2023, in the
light of observations made herein-above, the Writ Petition No. 1922 of 2012
also deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) The order passed by the Respondent No.2/The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division,
Dhule dated 02.07.2019 impugned in Writ Petition No. 13224 of
2023, and the order passed by the Respondent No.2/Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division, Dhule
dated 08.12.2012, impugned in Writ Petition No. 1922 of 2012,
are hereby quashed and set-aside.
iii) The Respondent No.2/The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division, Dhule in Writ Petition No.
13224 of 2023 as well as the Respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division, Dhule in Writ
Petition No. 1922 of 2012 are hereby directed to issue validity
certificates to the petitioners of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled
Tribe.
iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )
V.S.Joshi