1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETTION NO. 2444/2010 [KU. KSHAMA ZUNJIPALLIWAR ..VS.. DIVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND ORS AND WRIT PETITIN NO.2561/2010 [KSHITIZ ZUNJIPALLIWAR ..VS.. DIVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE SCURTINY COMMITTEE AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt. Neeta Jog, advocate for petitioners Shri P.D.Kothari AGP for respondents no.1 & 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 14, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur dated 6.1.2010, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his caste certificate showing his caste as “Mahar” before the respondent no.1 committee for verification. Several documents were produced by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 committee. However, none of the documents prior to the year 1952 showed that the petitioner belonged to “Mahar” caste. In fact the school record of the petitioner’s grandfather showed the entry “Mannyapawar” in the column of caste. Since the entries in regard to the caste in the case of the grandfather of the petitioner showed that he belonged to caste “Mannyapawar”, the respondent no.1 committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The entries in the school record of the grandfather of the petitioner was a weighty piece of evidence 2 as compared to the other documents produced by the petitioner. Since the other documents showing the caste as “Mahar” were recent document and since none of the documents prior the year 1952 showed that the petitioner belonged to Mahar caste the respondent no.1 committee rightly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahar – Scheduled Caste. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 6.1.2010. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is no caste by name 'Mannyapawar' and hence it was necessary for the respondent no.1 committee to make further enquiry in the matter, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. It was not for the committee to decide whether Mannyaawar was a caste or not and whether the petitioner belonged to Mannyapawar caste. The committee was merely considering the correctness of the caste claim made by the petitioner of belonging to Mahar Caste and the committee on a proper appreciation of the material on record rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Mahar – Scheduled Caste. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in the report in regard to the Central Provinces and Berar by W.H.Shoobert in the Chanda District according to census of 1931 Mehra or Mahar Caste was also known as “Somwanshi Manopwar” and hence entries in the school record of the grandfather of the petitioner could not have falsified the caste claim of the petitioner and therefore vigilance cell report was necessary is also liable to be rejected. In the census entry the entry “Mehra” or “Mahar” was said to have been known as “Somwanshi Manopwar” and not Mannyapawar as recorded in 3 the school record of the grandfather of the petitioner. Since the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is just and proper and is based on the material on record, the impugned order calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction . The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP