State Legislature’s Power To Verify Caste Certificates For Reservation-Based Central Govt Employment Upheld: Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Division Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Raj D. Wakode has held that the State Legislature is competent to provide for verification of caste certificates under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, even in relation to Central Government employees who obtained reserved posts on the basis of certificates issued by State authorities. Hearing petitions filed by such employees challenging the scrutiny of their caste claims, the Court upheld the State’s verification framework and rejected the argument that it intrudes upon the Union’s exclusive domain under Entry 70 of List I.
The petitions arise from Central Government employees, domiciled in Maharashtra, appointed to posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of caste certificates showing them as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. They contend that, at the time of appointment, the only requirement was production of a caste certificate, that verification was to be done by the District Magistrate under various office memoranda, and that they were appointed prior to 1995 and therefore, according to a Parliamentary Committee report and subsequent directions of the Department of Personnel and Training, should be excluded from later verification processes. They challenge communications issued after long years of service directing them to obtain validity certificates from the State Scrutiny Committee and the consequent departmental memoranda alleging misconduct for failure to submit such validity certificates.
The petitioners seek a declaration that the State Scrutiny Committee lacks power to verify the caste claims of Central Government employees and question the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, particularly Section 6(1) and Section 6(3), and related Rules, as being beyond State competence and encroaching upon the Union’s domain under Entry 70 of List I. They rely on Union List Entry 70, State List Entry 41, and contend that service conditions and verification of caste for Central services are governed exclusively by Central legislation. The State, relying on Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act and Concurrent List Entry 20, responds that issuance and verification of caste certificates fall within State jurisdiction and that the Act applies to all persons deriving reservation benefits on the strength of State-issued certificates, including Central Government employees.
The Court stated that “the power to issue caste certificate with Competent Authority under section 4 of the Act of 2000… any scrutiny for its validity would also be governed by the Act of 2000.” It recorded the petitioners’ contention that earlier Office Memoranda required verification by District Magistrates, but observed that “there was no necessity of further verification from the Scrutiny Committee… is the contention of the petitioners.”
The Court examined Section 6 and recorded that “Section 6(3) enables appointing authority of Central as well as State Governments… to make an application… for the verification.” The Court noted the argument that this provision was unconstitutional but stated that “there is no submission on section 6(1) of the Act of 2000 and rule 9 of the Rules of 2003.”
Discussing precedent, the Court observed that the Supreme Court in Jagdish Balaram Bahira held that “issuance of a caste certificate does not in itself conclude the level of scrutiny.” It further recorded that “Administrative circulars and government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandate… No government resolution or circular can override constitutional or statutory norms.”
Analysing the legislative competence argument, the Court stated that “applicability of a provision, even wrongfully, has nothing to do with legislative competence as they are two totally different concepts.” It recorded that the petitioners did not dispute the State’s competence to enact the Act of 2000 itself, noting that “while legislative incompetence would mean that the concerned legislature was incompetent to enact the provision… applicability is making the provision applicable to a set of persons.”
The Court further noted that “Sec.6(1) … merely empowers the State to constitute one or more Scrutiny Committees… for verification of the caste/tribe certificate issued by the Competent Authority.” It recorded that these provisions “do not determine or relate to the service conditions of any category of persons whatsoever.”
On Section 6(3), the Court stated that the provision “merely states that the appointing authority of the Central Government or P.S.U.’s shall make an application… for verification.” It further observed that obtaining validity is an obligation under Section 4(2), noting that “the caste certificate… shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.”
The Court articulated the consequence of failure to obtain validity, stating that “failure to do so, would clearly disentitle such person from any benefits of concessions.” It also recorded that accepting the petitioners’ contention would result in family members obtaining validity certificates “without verification… which is not the import and object of the enactment.”
The Court declared that “there is no unconstitutionality either in section 6(1) or 6(3) of the Act of 2000 and rule 9 of the Rules, 2003.” It held that the Act “is enacted in view of judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil… and provide[s] statutory framework to regulate the issuance of caste certificate, scrutiny, verification of claims and the consequences to ensue upon the verification of a claim.”
“If the employees of Central Government are deriving benefits meant for reserve category on the basis of reservation in the concerned State then there is no violation or unconstitutionality in asking such employee to get his/her caste validated.” The Court recorded that accepting the petitioners’ position would mean “the blood relatives of the employees of Central Government will get the validity certificate without verification of the Scrutiny Committee,” which “is not the import and object of the enactment.”
“The provisions of section 6(1) and 6(3) of the Act of 2000 and Rule 9 of the Rules, 2003 are held and declared to be valid and constitutional.” It further ordered that “the prayer in this regard stands rejected. Stand over to 17/12/2025 at 02.30 pm. for further consideration.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. R. Narnaware, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. Mr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Ms. Aakanksha Saxena, Advocate, Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Additional GP, and Mr. P. P. Pendke, AGP for the State; Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for the Union of India; Mr. S. S. Deshpande, Advocate.
Case Title: Anand Shankarrao Kolhatkar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2024 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Smt. M. S. Jawalkar and Justice Raj D. Wakode
