Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.A. Madiwale, learned AGP for the respondents/State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of invalidation dated 10.06.2026 passed by respondent No.1-The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim in case No.2025-00/24242/OW 898.

4. As per contention of the petitioner, he belongs to “Kunbi” caste which is recognized as O.B.C. by the State of Maharashtra, vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.1967 at serial No.83. She has obtained the OBC certificate on 06.01.2018. The petitioner has been selected and appointed as Fireman on contract basis for a period of three years subject to verification of her caste claim. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred by respondent No.2-the Fire Department through Chief Fire Officer to respondent No.1-Committee. The petitioner submitted various documents in support of her caste claim. As per her contention, her grand father Keshav and her great great grand father Vithoba both are recorded as “Kunbi. There are consistent entries since pre constitutional era showing the forefathers of the present petitioner as “Kunabi”. Being the documents of the year 1914, 1916 and 1920 are the oldest documents having highest probative value ought to have been considered by the Committee. However, the Committee ignored the said documentary evidence and invalidated the claim of the present petitioner. It is further contended that even the Vigilance Report supports the claim of the present petitioner as Vigilance Officer has verified all these entries during the verification. Despite the Vigilance Report the respondent No.1-Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. It is further contended that the cousin brother of the petitioner obtained the validity certificate on the basis of similar documents but this fact is also ignored by the Committee and therefore, the order passed by the Committee deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the said contentions and taken us through the various documents to substantiate his claim. He also invited our attention towards validity granted to Kunal Subhash Khambalkar who is the cousin brother of the present petitioner and submitted that said validity was granted by the same Committee on the basis of the similar documents. Thus, the Committee has ignored the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and ors. reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401.

6. Learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there was interpolation in the document i.e. school record. More over there is an adverse entry while admitting son of Vithoba in the school as he was recorded as “Maratha” and considering the said contrary entry, the Committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, no interference is called for.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State and perused the relevant documents. The family tree submitted before the Committee shows that one Ramji Maroti was great great grand father of present petitioner having one son namely Vithoba. Said Vithoba who is great grand father of the petitioner having two sons namely Keshav and Bhaurao. Keshav Vithoba Khambalkar is the grand father of the present petitioner having one son Gajanan who is father of the present petitioner. Whereas Bhaurao Vithoba is cousin grand father of the present petitioner and Subhas Bhaurao is the uncle who is having one son Kunal Subhash Khambalkar to whom the validity certificate is granted. The petitioner mainly placed reliance on the pre constitutional documents which shows that great great grand father of the present petitioner namely Ramji was recorded as “Kunbi” in a birth and death register in the year 1920. The extract of the Kotwali Registrar shows that birth date of male child of said Ramji was registered in the year 1920 and at the time of recording the said birth entry the said Ramji Maroti was recorded as “Kunabi”. The great grand father of present petitioner Vithoba was also recorded as “Kunabi” in the year 1928, while recording the birth entry of his son in the birth register. The cousin grand father of the present petitioner namely Bhaurao was also recorded as “Kunabi” in school admission extract. The son of Subhash was also recorded as “Kunabi” in school record. Though learned AGP placed reliance on one stray entry showing that when Bhaurao was admitted in school, he was recorded as “Maratha”. However considering that there are pre constitutional entries, this stray entry would not be sufficient to discard the caste claim of the present petitioner mainly in the light of the fact that during vigilance all these entries were verified by the Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Report specifically shows that Vigilance Officer has verified the entry in the name of great great grand father of the present petitioner Ramji of dated 02.03.1920, wherein said Ramji was recorded as “Kunabi”. The Vigilance Officer also recorded statements of various witnesses who have also stated that the petitioners forefathers belong to the “Kunabi”. Thus, considering the entry on which the petitioner is relied upon is already verified by the Vigilance Officer and nothing incriminating is found in the said entry. In view of that, the Committee ought to have considered the said entry and especially in the light of the fact that on the basis of the said document, the validity is granted by the said Committee to the cousin brother of the petitioner.

8. The law is well settled as to the evidentiary value of the pre constitutional documents. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Madhav Maakalwad vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors reported in MANU/SC/1070/2025 by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1316/2011 wherein it is 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 documents. In the present case, thus, it can been seen that the petitioner relied upon the pre-Independence documents wherein forefathers of the petitioner consistently recorded as “Kunabi” and said pre independence documents furnish a higher decree of probative value to the declaration of status of the caste as compared to post-Independence documents.

9. More over on the basis of the said document, the cousin brother of the petitioner has already granted with a validity. Therefore, the law settled by this Court, in the case of Apoorva Nichale referred supra, will come into play wherein, it is held that “we thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the Committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.” It is further held by the Division Bench that “in the circumstances, we are of the view that the Committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion.”

10. Here in the present case, the validity was granted to the cousin brother of the present petitioner on the basis of the similar document. The reasoning assigned by the Committee is not just and proper while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner specially in the light of the fact that the petitioner has produced on record documents of pre-Independence era showing the forefathers of the petitioner were recorded as “Kunabi” consistently and the said documents are having higher probative value.

11. In view of the above observation, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has established her caste claim that she belongs to “Kunabi” and for the reasons recorded above, the petition deserves to be allowed.

12. In this view of the matter, we proceed to pass following order:

                   ORDER

                   (i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

                   (ii) The order dated 10.06.2026 passed by respondent No.1 - The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim in case No.2025-00/24242/OW 898 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set side.

                   (iii) The petitioner is declared as belonging to “Kunabi” caste.

                   (iv) Respondent No.1-Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate to the present petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

13. With this observation petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. No costs.

14. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.