1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7674 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7674 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7674 OF 2007 Narayan Genba Chive. .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. A.M. Joshi for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.7.2007 wherein the Caste Scrutiny Committee found that the petitioner does not belong to caste ’Mahadeo Koli’ scheduled tribe and invalidated his caste certificate which was referred to it by the respondent institution where the petitioner is employed. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for 2 the petitioner that the petitioner’s case has not been properly scrutinised by the Committee and it has overlooked the decision of this Court as well as the fact that the service book of the petitioner’s father clearly describes his caste as ’Mahadeo Koli’. 4. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not only examined the documents submitted by the petitioner before it, but has also applied the affinity test and found that the petitioner was not able to satisfy that he belongs to caste ’Mahadeo Koli’. In so far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 383 of 1994 in the case of Shamkant Vasantrao Baviskar vs. The Director of Tribal Research and Training is concerned that cannot be chosen for the purpose nor it supports the case of the petitioner on facts to hold that he is ’Mahadeo Koli’. On the other hand, the Scrutiny Committee found that four of the paternal cousins of the petitioner have their caste recorded as ’Koli’ whereas the service book of the petitioner’s father is subsequent to the cut-off date and that also the original was not produced for their inspection. 5. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the impugned order calls for any interference. 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition then the petitioner be granted liberty to approach his employer in the light of the fact that the petitioner being in service since the year 2002 his service needs to be protected and in view of the G.R. dated 15.6.1995 under which his service stands protected. It will be open for the petitioner to approach his employer and seek protection of his service in light of the G.R. issued by the State Government and it will be open for the respondent management to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. The petition stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)