(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6720 OF 2010 Lalita d/o. Dhansing Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Household & Service, R/o. Pimpalwadi, Visapurtanda, Taluka : Chalisgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Employment Scheme, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 5. Sau. Kalpana w/o. Ankush Rathod, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Pimpalwadi (Visapur Tanda), Taluka : Chalisgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.S. Sonawane, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4 (Absent). Mr. Girish Rane, Advocate, holding for Mr. Deepak Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent no.5 / caveator. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.S. Tope, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Adv. Mr. Girish Rane, holding for Adv. Mr. Deepak Choudhari, for respondent no.5. Nobody has appeared for respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. Short question is, whether present petitioner had submitted caste certificate showing that she belongs to "Banjara" (3) community recognized as Vimukta Jati (A) on 14-5-2008 i.e. last date for submitting application for employment or then, she supplied it on 20-5-2008 i.e. at the time of her interview. The impugned order dated 8-6-2010 by which her appointment has been cancelled, records that she had not submitted that certificate till 14-5-2008. Reason therefor is, had she submitted caste certificate, she could have been allotted marks therefor and those marks could have then figured in chart prepared before interview on 20-5-2008. 3. Adv. Mr. Tope has relied upon the affidavit filed before this court by respondent nos.3 and 4 which states that she supplied caste certificate on 14-5-2008 i.e. on the last date prescribed for submission of application and hence that certificate has been looked into. He has also contended that on 8-5-2008, the petitioner got knowledge that she has to submit caste certificate and, therefore, she rushed at SETU and sought caste certificate which she received on 14-5-2008 and it was then immediately submitted. 4. Adv. Mr. Girish Rane, on the other hand, points out the chart prepared for the purposes of interview. According to him, in that chart, respondent no.5 and other candidates who had submitted caste certificate have been given 10 marks for their (4) caste claim, while petitioner has not been given any mark on that count and this shows that till preparation of that chart, she had not submitted any caste certificate. The chart is prepared by CDPO. In view of this, according to him, affidavit filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 is incorrect. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Ghute Patil has supported the impugned order. 6. In view of adverse finding against the petitioner, it was necessary for the petitioner to point out to this court, with clinching evidence that she submitted her caste certificate on 14-5-2008. The certificate obtained by her is also dated 14-5-2008. That certificate does not specify the date on which the application therefor was filed and the petitioner has not annexed any such application or then, any receipt for payment therefor to the department. The certificate is issued by Sub- Divisional Officer, Pachora Division, Pachora, and as it is issued on 14-5-2008 itself, absence of these documents and adverse finding against the petitioner needs to be given more importance. 7. Though respondent nos.3 and 4 are aware of the findings of the appellate authority, they have remained satisfied (5) only by stating that the certificate was filed on 14-5-2008. However, they have not contradicted the chart prepared on the basis of the documents received till last date. This assumes importance because of a specific requirement of the selection policy which lays down that in no case documents submitted later on can be looked into. 8. Contention is, caste certificate was submitted on 14-5-2008 and at the time of interview as it was found submitted by last date, the Chairman of the Selection Committee asked the Committee to take it into consideration. However, the contention is not borne out from record. 9. As findings by the appellate authority cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse, no interference is warranted in this jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6720