IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5155 of 2008 PETITION NO.5155 of 2008 PETITION NO.5155 of 2008 Dilip Makabul Shaikh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Petitioner Mr.A.E.Deshmukh, Special Counsel for Respondent nos.1,2 and 5 Mr.Vinit Naik i.b Mr.S.S.Shah for Respondent no.3 CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.Daga and : V.C.Daga and : V.C.Daga and Mrs.Mridula Mrs.Mridula Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ Bhatkar, JJ Bhatkar, JJ DATED DATED DATED : 2nd March, 2009 : 2nd March, 2009 : 2nd March, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 and 5. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 16th May 2008 whereby the caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated. 3. The petitioner is claiming to be a person belonging to "Jhullah" caste " OBC " (at Serial No.57). The said claim of the petitioner was investigated and invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by impugned order for the reasons recorded therein. 4. The two vigilance reports one dated 4th July 2005 and another dated 13th March 2006 were taken into consideration and appreciated by the Scrutiny Committee. So far as the evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, no documentary evidence in support of the claim has come on record. The documentary evidence produced every where refers the petitioner as "Muslim". 5. Both the above reports one dated 4th July 2005 and the other dated 13th March 2006 were before the Scrutiny Committee. We were also taken through each of the reports. Both the reports are running contrary to each other. Merely on the basis of the oral evidence, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner belongs to Jullah (O.B.C.) as is claimed by him especially, when the oral evidence does not inspire judicial confidence. It has come from person interested. This piece of evidence has been appreciated by the committee in its proper perspective. 6. It has come on record that at one point of time the petitioner had also sought to claimed to be a person belonging "Koya" Scheduled tribe (Serial No.33). 7. Be that as it may, the entire order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is based on appreciation of evidence that was put forth before it. The reasons in support of the order are recorded. We were also taken through the entire material available on record to persuade us to hold that the impugned order is perverse,arbitrary and illegal. 8. This Court not being a Court of Appeal is not expected to reappreciate the evidence unless comes to the conclusion that appreciation of evidence done by the committee was perverse. The shifting stand taken by the petitioner by itself is one of the pointer to show that he is trying to claim advantage of the reservation. At one time he claimed to Schedule Tribe and another as O.B.C. 9. Reliance placed on the judgment of Kum.Madhuri Kum.Madhuri Kum.Madhuri Patil Patil Patil vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Development, Development, 1994 (6) SCC 241 1994 (6) SCC 241 1994 (6) SCC 241 by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts and circumstance of this case is misplaced. In the result, Petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. { Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J } Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J } Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J } { V.C.Daga, J } V.C.Daga, J } V.C.Daga, J }