Kambli 1 wp8169.10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8169 OF 2010 ... Shubhangi Anil Kolekar ...Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Amit B. Borkar for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. Dated: 13th October, 2010 P.C.: By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the Petitioner’s claim that she Kambli 2 wp8169.10 belongs to Kumbhar caste, which is Other Backward Class is not valid. Admittedly, the Petitioner is Brahmin by caste. She married the person belonging to Kumbhar caste. The Scrutiny Committee relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Valsamma Paul v/s. Cochin University and ors., (1996) 3 SCC 545 has held that by marrying a person belonging to Backward class person, a person belonging to Forward Class cannot claim the benefits available to a person belonging to the Backward Class. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee should have inquired into the facts of the case to find out whether the Petitioner has suffered same disadvantages which were suffered by her husband. Kambli 3 wp8169.10 3. In our opinion, that inquiry is not necessary. It is clear that the Petitioner comes from advanced community. She married a person belonging to Kumbhar caste in the year 1989, and therefore, it cannot be said that she suffered any disadvantage suffered by her husband. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)