1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1000 OF 2009 Dnyaneshwar s/o Maroti Barapatre ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1, 3 & 6; Mr P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15th March, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, dated 30.10.2008 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, who had sought employment on a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, had submitted a certificate as belonging to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe. The aforesaid certificate submitted by the petitioner came to be referred by the Head Master of Shri Subhash Vidyalaya, Gokul (Gondegaon), Taluka Mahur, District Nanded to the Scrutiny 2 Committee for verification of the caste status of the petitioner as belonging to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe. In support of his claim as belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner had submitted various other documents. During the vigilance cell inquiry it was unearthed that in the school records pertaining to the petitioner originally the word "Halbi" was written, which was overwritten to read as "Halba". Similar was the case in respect of the cousin of the petitioner. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee after evaluating the various documents found that the basic school record of the petitioner and his relatives was in respect of "Halbi" and that the petitioner had utterly failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage towards "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe. 2. Shri Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the caste "Halba" in respect of the petitioner came to be recorded inadvertently and on account of illiteracy of the father of the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to "Halbi", which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe and not "Halba'. It appears that the petitioner had submitted certain communication to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for considering the case of the petitioner as belonging to "Halbi" - Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the matter be remitted back to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh so that the Scrutiny Committee can embark on an inquiry to determine if the petitioner belongs to "Halbi" - Scheduled Tribe. Mr P.S. Patil, learned 3 Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee has opposed the petition on the ground that the respondent - Scrutiny Committee has correctly evaluated the material produced by the petitioner and has recorded a finding, which cannot be faulted with. 3. The petitioner had sought employment on the ground that he belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. A certificate to that effect also came to be issued to the petitioner from the competent authority. After the petitioner obtained employment, the certificate of the petitioner as belonging to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe came to be referred to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner utterly failed to establish that he belongs to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the school record of the petitioner and his other relatives indicate that the petitioner belongs to "Halbi" - Scheduled Tribe. What was required to be evaluated and decided by the Committee was, whether the petitioner belongs to the "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe as per the certificate which was issued by the competent authorities. The Scrutiny Committee is not supposed to embark on an inquiry to determine as to which caste the petitioner belongs. The Committee has found on account of paucity of material that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to "Halba" - Scheduled Tribe and in that light has invalidated the caste certificate. We have perused the findings recorded by the Committee and we cannot fault the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee in the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction and, therefore, are not entitled to re- 4 appreciate the evidence. The appreciation of the evidence is faultless and we do not notice any grounds whatsoever for interfering with the order of the Scrutiny Committee. In that light of the matter, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P. V. HARDAS, J.) amj/wp1000.09