1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2722 OF 2007 * Jyoti D/o Mohan Sonwane, Age 23 years, Occupation : Education, R/o Lions Club Colony, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3) The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Office of SDO, Aurangabad. 4) The Competent Authority, D.Ed. Admission Regulation Committee, Pune Office of Maharashtra State Educational Research & Training Council, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune – 411 030. 5) The Director, Maharashtra State Educational Research & Training Council, 708, Sadashiv Peth, Kumthekar Road, Pune – 30. 2 6) The Principal, Sant Gadge Maharaj Adhyapak D.Ed. College N-6, Sai Nagar Cidco, District Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ------- Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1,3,4 and 5. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 17th JUNE 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 3) The petitioner challenges the order dated 17-4-2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad 3 Division, Aurangabad, invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur. 4) We have perused the document (Exhibit “H” to this petition). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not Maratha Thakur. In the school record of the petitioner the caste is mentioned as "Bhikshashuk Thakur". According to the learned counsel Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar the uncle and cousin of the petitioner have been granted Validity Certificates as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. 5) Learned counsel Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, for the Committee submits that the burden lies on the petitioner to establish her tribe claim. In the affinity test, some answers are not in consonance with the claim of the petitioner and it is not binding on the Committee to grant validity certificate to the petitioner though her uncle and cousin were granted validity certificates. 4 6) We have perused the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995. We find that in the light of the Full Bench judgment (supra), the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur will have to be re-examined by the Committee. The Committee shall record brief reasons. All the issues raised by the contesting parties shall be re-examined afresh by the Committee on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner be heard before passing final order. The counsel Shri. Golegaonkar for the petitioner submits that the Committee in the impugned order mentioned that in the school admission register of the petitioner’s uncle the caste is mentioned as “Maratha Thakur”, the same is typographical mistake. The said issue would also be looked into by the Committee. 5 7) The order dated 17-4-2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 – Committee for deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 25th June 2009 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee after hearing the petitioner shall pass final order on the claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from 25-6-2009. The admission of the petitioner to the D.Ed. Course shall not be adversely affected till final decision on the tribe claim of the petitioner by the Committee. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2722.07