Kambli 1 WP6091.07 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6091 OF 2007 ... Prashant Shivaji Jadhav ...Petitioner v/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 3.Competent Authority and Director, Medical Education & Research, Maharashtra State 4.Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College 5.Sub Divisional Officer Vai Sub Division, District: Satara ...Respondents ... Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Gangal Special Counsel with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 22nd November,2010 Kambli 2 WP6091.07 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th June, 2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe is not valid. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 3. Perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee shows that the Scrutiny Committee found that in a document dated 8-6-1936, which was the school record of the grand- father of the Petitioner, the caste of the grand-father is mentioned as Hindu Bhat. It also found that in a document executed by the great grand-father of the Petitioner of the year 1917 the caste is mentioned as “Bhat” and therefore the Petitioner belong to Bhat Kambli 3 WP6091.07 caste and not Thakar scheduled tribe. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the school leaving certificate of the grand-father of the Petitioner dated 16-7-1926, where his caste is mentioned as “Thakar”, and he submitted that thus there is material on record to show that the caste of the Petitioner is Thakar. 4. In our opinion, however, the submission has no force. So far as grand- father of the Petitioner is concerned, at one place his caste is mentioned as “Bhat” and in other place it is mentioned as “Thakar”. However, so far as great grand-father of the Petitioner Shri Parvati Jadhav is concerned, in the sale-deed which was executed in favour of said Parvati in the year 1917, his caste is mentioned as Bhat. That document has been produced on record. We have seen that Kambli 4 WP6091.07 document and it clearly shows that in the year 1917 the caste of the great grand-father of the Petitioner is mentioned as “Bhat”. Therefore, according to us no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the Petitioner has failed to prove that he is Thakar by caste. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)