1 W.P.No.2443.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2443 OF 2007 Sudhakar Shankarrao Panbone Age 29 years,Occupation Nil, R/o Sindkhed,Tq.Nilanga. District Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Verification Committee,Aurangabad Through its, Deputy Director (R) Aurangbad. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.P.S.Patil, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe “Koli Mahadeo”. He obtained certificate to that effect, which was forwarded for verification to scheduled Tribe Certificate Committee. The 2 W.P.No.2443.07 Committee vide its order dated 23.03.2007 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard fully and the Committee communicated the decision on 23.3.2007. The learned counsel appearing for the Committee submits that the Vigilance Cell Report was sent to the petitioner for submitting his say and thereafter the matter was posted for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present, because his father was ill. The learned counsel submits that petitioner’s caste is recorded as “Mahadeo Koli” in school record and caste of one of his brother namely Prabhakar is also recorded as “Mahadeo Koli Hindu”. The petitioner's forefathers are illiterate, therefore, the petitioner could not produce any school record. Affinity test is crucial to decide the claim of the petitioner. The committee did not appreciate the evidence of affinity test but merely observed that the 3 W.P.No.2443.07 petitioner fails to satisfy the affinity test and rejected the contention of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Committee submits that the Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted. The statement of petitioner’s father was recorded. The record reveals that the petitioner’s one of the brother was studying in the school, wherein his caste is shown as “Hindu Koli”. The petitioner’s other brothers namely Digamber Namdeo Panbone and Dattatrya Namdeo Panbone’s caste is also found to be recorded as “Hindu Koli” as per the admission register of the school. The petitioner’s another brother Pandhari’s caste is also recorded as “Hindu Koli” in the year 1970. According to the learned counsel, these are the old entries and can not be discarded. 5. The counsel submits that the petitioner failed to satisfy the affinity test. It is clear that the petitioner could not successfully satisfy the 4 W.P.No.2443.07 committee on affinity test. 6. We have perused the record, the judgment and order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We do not accept the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard by the Committee on affinity test. The petitioner did not allege the said fact in the petition. In the order, it is clearly recorded by the Committee that the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 23.02.2007. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and was heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed the reply, but could not argue the matter. This contention is not accepted. We find that the petitioner produced original school record of himself and his brothers. The School record of one of the petitioner’s brother is against the case set up by the petitioner. The caste of Pandhari in school record is mentioned as “Hindu Koli”, and 5 W.P.No.2443.07 other relatives of the petitioner’s caste is also “Hindu Koli”, though the caste of one of the brother of the petitioner namely Prabhakar’s is “Mahadeo Koli”. The original record does not support the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had successfully established affinity test. 7. Considering the record placed before us and the observations made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, we do not find any glaring, serious error in the conclusion reached by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the petition. The Writ petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK