1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.430 OF 2010 1. Digambar s/o Ganpat Mekhle, Age: Major, Occ: Service, R/o. Hirapur, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 2. Pranita d/o Digambar Mekhle, Age: 11 years, U/g of Petitioner R/o. Hirapur, Tq. Georai, District Beed. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed, District Beed. 3. S.T., Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad through its Member Secretary, Aurangabad. 4. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources, Development, through its Secretary. 5. Principal, Jawahar Navodalaya Vidyalaya, Amba Partur, Dist.Jalna. .. Respondents 2 ... Mr. Ravindra Nirmal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India, respondent No.4. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 23-11-2009, which in turn, upholds the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby the petitioner No.2's request for issuance of the caste certificate came to be rejected. The petitioner No. 2 3 submitted the application for issuance of the caste certificate to the Sub Divisional Officer which was supported by the caste certificates of the petitioner No.2's father, mother and cousin brothers. If the petitioner No. 2 is relying on such basic documents, it was not open to the Sub Divisional Officer to reject the request of the petitioner No.2 to issue caste certificate. No doubt, the said caste certificate would be subject to the scrutiny of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, if the Caste Scrutiny Committee, after due verification could invalidate the same. 3. For the time being, suffice it to observe that there was prima facie material produced by the petitioner No.2 to issue caste certificate in her favour which material pertains to her close blood relations like father, mother and cousin brothers. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, which are 4 impugned in this petition, are set aside. In stead, the Sub Divisional Officer is directed to re-examine the application referred by the petitioner No. 2 and pass appropriate orders, which however will be subject to verification and decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Till the Caste Scrutiny Committee finally disposes of the proposal regarding the caste claim of the petitioner No.2, respondent No. 5 shall not discontinue the petitioner No. 2 and allow the petitioner No.2 to pursue her education, subject to result of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the proposal regarding the caste claim of the petitioner No.2, expeditiously, preferably within SIX MONTHS from the date of its receipt. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 4. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 5 sut/JAN10/wp430.10