Pre-constitutional documents cannot be discarded by scrutiny committees solely for dilapidated condition or phonetic spelling variations like 'Haalbi' for 'Halbi'; phonetic similarity and family tree must be considered over technicalities and affinity test.

JUDGMENT :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner, by this petition, is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Scrutiny Committee bearing Case No. 11/510/Edu/082024/110326 dated 14.08.2025, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe category and cancelling the caste certificate dated 26.12.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Umarkhed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student in respondent No.3 College and belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr.No.19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed issued a caste certificate in his favour on 26.12.2017. The petitioner submitted his tribe claim to respondent No.1 Committee for verification and on 14.08.2025, the respondent No.1 Committee passed the impugned order invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner submits that he has relied upon the following pre-constitutional documents in support of his tribe claim:

5. The petitioner submits that the Police Vigilance Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the respondent Committee which was forwarded to the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 23.07.2025. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 04.08.2025 and submitted a detailed reply explaining that the Koshti entries are of persons not related to him or his family. The Vigilance Officer also obtained documents showing caste as ‘Marathi’ of persons not related to the petitioner.The said detailed reply has not been considered by the Committee.

6. The petitioner specifically contends that the Birth Extract of Champat Devji Parate dated 16.06.1925 is a crucial pre-constitutional document clearly recording the caste as ‘Halbi’ and deserves high probative value. There is no finding of fraud or interpolation and there are no adverse remarks on these documents. The Committee has illegally discarded these documents on the ground of ‘relation not established’ despite the clear genealogical link established through the family tree.

7. The petitioner further submits that the Committee has rejected the caste claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish the affinity test. It is contended that when documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, it is not permissible for the Committee to reject the claim solely on the basis of affinity test.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims , 2011 (6) Mh. L.J. 919, Vilas Dinkar Bhat v. State of Maharashtra (decided on 03.11.2020), Madhuri Patil, Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samitee v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 (2) Mh. L.J. 785 and Priya Pramod Gajabe v. State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal No. 7117/2019.

9. For the sake of brevity, the family tree is reproduced below :

10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, at Serial No. 19 the entry reads ‘Halba, Halbi’ thereby indicating that ‘Halba’ and ‘Halbi’ are distinct tribes. It is submitted that the petitioner’s cousin grandfather belonged to ‘Halba’ S