6718-20 wp (Jt.)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6718 OF 2020

Shubham S/o Sham Salunke

Age – 22 years, Occu.: Student,

R/o. 6/5-L/4, Ramnagar,

Vitthal Chowk, N-2, CIDCO,

Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Auranagabad.

... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

Department of Tribal Development

Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

Through its Secretary.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,

Through its Member Secretary.

3. College of Agriculture,

Run by Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj

Shikshan Sanstha, Kanchanwadi,

Paithan Road, Aurangabad,

Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad,

Through its Principal.

4. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi

Vidyapeeth, Parbhani,

Tq. & Dist. Parbhani,

Through its Registrar.

... Respondents.

....

Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Patil, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. S.B. Kakde, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

….

1 of 9

6718-20 wp (Jt.)

2

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

Closed for Judgment on : 24.02.2021

Judgment Pronounced on : 02.03.2021

JUDGMENT (PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) :-

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2.

By invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned

order passed by respondent No.2 / The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter

referred to as the “committee” for the sake of convenience) dated

24.02.2020, thereby invalidating caste claim of the petitioner

belonging to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe community. The Committee

has referred the case to the vigilance officer for enquiry. The vigilance

officer has submitted its report to the committee. The petitioner has

filed his reply to the show cause notice issued by the committee. The

committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. The

petitioner has completed his B.Sc. (Agri.) Course, but did not get a

degree certificate for want of certificate of validity. In that

background, the petitioner is before us.

2 of 9

6718-20 wp (Jt.)

3

3.

Heard Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.

S.B.Kakde, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. B.A. Shinde,

learned counsel for respondent No.4.

4.

Perused the impugned order and papers annexed with the

petition.

5.

The tribe claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated by

the committee on following three grounds:

(i) The petitioner has failed to prove his tribe claim on the

basis of documentary evidence.

(ii) The petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of the tribe

validity certificates issued to the blood relatives in his

family.

(iii)The petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test.

6.

Mr. Yeramwar, learned counsel vehemently submitted that

the petitioner has produced documentary evidence in support of his

tribe claim right from the year 1959, thereby establishing that the

family of the petitioner belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. The

committee has not considered the old record in a proper perspective

and discarded the same simply relying upon alleged three contra

3 of 9

6718-20 wp (Jt.)

4

entries. The said three contra entries were the subject matter of the

caste validity proceeding of the petitioner’s uncle Mr. Appasaheb

Pandit Salunke. The petitioner’s father Mr. Sham Pandit Salunke and

uncle Mr. Appasaheb Pandit Salunke are issued with the validity

certificates. The genealogy is not disputed by the committee. As such,

the committee ought to have given the benefit of caste certificates of

petitioner’s uncle and father in