1 W.P.No.10822/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10822 OF 2010. Sunanda W/o Vasant Mane @ Sunanda D/o Bhimrao Waghmode, Age 31 years, Occ.Service (Select List), R/o Near Mahanand Dairy, Plot No.117-112 MIDC, Kalamb Road, Latur City, Latur, Tq. Latur, District Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, (SC, VJ, OBC and SBC) No.2, Aurangabad Division, at Latur, through its Member Secretary. 2. The Collector, Latur Collector Office,Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai. 4. The Head Master, Zilla Parishad, Primary School, Village Dorli, Tq.Jat, 2 W.P.No.10822/10 Dist.Sangali. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Sagar Killarikar Balaji L. advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Reserved on : 28.02.2011 Pronounced on: 10.03.2011. PER COURT 1. The Caste Certificate of the petitioner as belonging to "Dhangar" caste was referred to the Respondent NO.1 Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee as the petitioner was selected by the Respondent No.2 as its employee as against Nomadic Tribe No. 1 reserved category post as a Clerk-cum-typist. 2. The Respondent No.1 Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 29.10.2010, 3 W.P.No.10822/10 basically on the ground that the petitioner could not prove that prior to 21.11.1961 i.e. the date when the said caste "Dhangar" was notified as Nomadic Tribe in the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner's parents resided in State of Maharashtra. So also the Committee had found that the School record produced by the petitioner of her father was fabricated. 3. Mr.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the School record of the petitioner consistently shows her caste as "Dhangar". The grand father of the petitioner was resident of Sangali District. The petitioner would not rely on the School record of her father and independently of the said record, the petitioner would prove her case. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the directions of High Court in W.P.No.6296/2009, the State Government had issued a circular dated 5th October, 2009, wherein the Committee while deciding the caste claim and delivering the judgment are required to follow certain well laid down procedure. According to learned counsel the 4 W.P.No.10822/10 procedure as contemplated in clause No.8 of the said Circular was not followed by the Committee inasmuch as the impugned judgment does not state as to which Member has written the judgment. According to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside on said count also. The learned counsel relies on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench at its principal seat at Bombay in W.P.No.5009/2010. Mr.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel further contends that although the petitioner did not have the documentary evidence to show that the parents of the petitioner were residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to 1961, still, the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to adduce the oral evidence. The petitioner would prove said fact by oral evidence. It is because of lack of knowledge, oral evidence could not be led to prove the said factum. If an opportunity is given, the petitioner would be in a position to prove that prior to 1961, the parents of the petitioner were residing in the State of Maharashtra. 5 W.P.No.10822/10 4. Mrs.Gondhalekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader resisted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the Vigilance report clearly states that fabricated School record of petitioner's father was produced. The father of petitioner never studied in the School from which the certificate was produced. This shows the attitude of the petitioner. The petitioner had failed to establish that her parents were residing in Maharashtra prior to 1961. According to the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner. The copy of Vigilance report was given to the petitioner, so also she was called for personal hearing. As she could not produce any evidence about the residence of her parents prior to 1961, the Committee rightly rejected her caste claim. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and also perused the record. The moot question would be whether the petitioner establishes that prior to 1961, the parents of the petitioner resided in the 6 W.P.No.10822/10 State of Maharashtra i.e. at the time when as per Notification dated 21.11.1961, the caste "Dhangar" was included in Nomadic Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. 6. There is not a single document on record to substantiate the said fact. Even the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner of her father showing that her father had taken admission in Zilla Parishad, Primary School at Jat, District Sangali and left the said School on 3l.3.1960 is proved to be false and fabricated. Even the Vigilance Committee has investigated and found that no such certificate is issued by said School. No evidence is forth- coming about the fact of residence/domicile of the parents of the petitioner prior to 1961. The petitioner is born on 11.4.1979. As such there is no iota of evidence for coming to the conclusion that the parents of the petitioner resided in the State of Maharashtra as on the date of issuance of the notification dated 21.11.1961, by virtue of which the caste "Dhangar" was included in the Nomadic Tribe. 7 W.P.No.10822/10 7. The next submission of Mr.Sagar Killarikar that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside on the ground that the circular dated 5.10.2009, issued by the State Government regarding the procedure to be followed while delivering the judgment has not been followed and as such the judgment is bad in law is not sustainable. We have gone through the proceedings and Roznama. There was meeting of all the three members i.e. the Member Secretary, Member and the President of the Committee and all of them took unanimous decision in the said meeting that as on the date of notification in 1961, the parents/grand parents of the petitioner were not residing in the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner is not entitled for said validity certificate. Just because the judgment does not depict as the person who has written the judgment, the same could not vitiate the whole judgment. The judgment is signed by all the members of the Committee. The reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in W.P.No.5009/2010 would be of no avail to the petitioner as the Division Bench in 8 W.P.No.10822/10 the said Judgment more particularly, in para 2 has observed thus : "It is common ground that the Scrutiny Committee has not followed many of the instructions contained in the circular dated 5th October, 2009. In making the order which is impugned in this petition, in this view of the matter therefore, there is no option but to set aside the impugned judgment." In the present case except the fact that the name of the Member who has written the judgment on behalf of the Committee is not mentioned, no other flaw is pointed out. The Committee unanimously on merits has found that the claim of the petitioner can not be substantiated and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that on the date of the notification referred supra, the parents/grand parents of the petitioner were residing in the State of Maharashtra, the claim has been rejected. 9 W.P.No.10822/10 8. In that light of the matter, we do not find any error committed by the Committee, the petition as such is dismissed. However,there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp1082210