2026:BHC-AS:4920-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.2969 of 2020 Kum. Manasi Vinayak More … Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents.

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional G.P. a/w. Mrs. D.S.Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondents – State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &

S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 14th January 2026.

P.C. : (Per S.M.Modak, J)

Heard Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. Solunke, the Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.

2. The Petitioner belongs to Thakur tribe and her caste claim was Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANIDate: invalidated by Respondent No.2 – Committee as per the impugned

2026.01.31 12:22:32 +0530 order dated 3^rd August 2018. She has got tribe certificate issued by the Jalgaon Assistant Collector being a member of Thakur tribe which is recognised as Sr. No.44 of Scheduled Tribe order. The Petitioner was desirous of taking admission in medicine and was desirous of appearing for NEET examination.

3. The Petitioner relied upon two caste validity certificates issued by the Committee, one in favour of her father-Vinayak Prabhakar More and another in favour of her paternal aunt Kirti Prabhakar More, in support of her claim. The reasoning finds place in Para No.10 of the impugned order. The Petitioner also relied upon pre- constitutional documents which did not find favour with the Committee. The Committee was of the view that the Petitioner has failed to pass the affinity test.

4. No doubt that her paternal aunt Kirti Prabhakar More was issued a show-cause notice about withdrawing the validity certificate. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record the order dated 17^th November 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.12900/2017 by the Division Bench at Aurangabad, in a challenge to such show-cause notice, the validity certificate issued to the Petitioner's aunt ‘Kirti’ is protected.

5. So far as the validity certificate issued to Petitioner’s father- Vinayak is concerned, the Committee observed “validity certificate issued to Applicant’s father namely Vinayak Prabhakar More is not useful while deciding the present matter.” The said observations are in the teeth of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v/s.

State of Maharashtra¹ Their Lordships has laid down in what manner the Committee should consider validity certificates issued to close blood relatives relied upon by the claimant. Those observations find place in Para No.24. The Committee has to consider three essential things:

(i) Whether there is blood relationship?

(ii) Whether the validity certificate is obtained after conducting due enquiry and following the procedure?

(iii) Whether the Committee feels that the certificate is genuine?

6. If these tests are applied, we do not find any justification for discarding the validity certificate of the father. There is no dispute about the relationship. The Committee does not find the certificate to be not genuine or that the same is issued without any enquiry and following the proper procedure.

7. The subsequent development of the Aurangabad Bench directing issuance of the validity certificate to the paternal aunt of the Petitioner is significant. There is no dispute that Kirti is a close blood relative of the Petitioner.

8. Our attention is invited to genealogy on Page No.73 which is reproduced in the explanation given by Vinayak Prabhakar More who is father of the Petitioner to the Committee on 13^th August

1 (2023) 16 SCC 415

2018. Kirti is shown to be the daughter of Prabhakar and the said Prabhakar is shown to be the grandfather of Petitioner - Manasi. There is no material to show that this genealogy is disputed. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committ