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. 7363 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7363 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7363 OF 2007 Mangla Jagdish Sonawane. .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. R.K Mandadkar & H.K. Mandlik for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent nos.1, 2 & 5. 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: 25th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 25th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 25th JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not only taken us through the provisions of the Act and the Rules governing examination of the caste claim which were existing and in force after the decision of Madhuri Patil’s case but also subsequent part and has also given various illustrations and has specifically emphasised to us that when the father of the petitioner has a document of the year 1942 showing that in the school record his caste has been recorded as ’Mahadeo 2 Koli’, merely because he is not able to satisfy the Scrutiny Committee on affinity test, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to ’Mahadeo Koli’ Scheduled Tribe could not have been discarded. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 13.8.2007 wherein her caste certificate of ’Koli Mahadeo’ Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. 3. The petitioner is in Central Government service and it is not disputed that she got employment on the basis that she belongs to caste ’Koli Mahadeo’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe i.e. on a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. 4. Having gone through the impugned order, we are satisfied that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner and invalidating the caste certificate. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not only examined the documents produced before it but also the report of the Vigilance Cell and the affinity test and the replies given by the petitioner and her father in response to the report of the Vigilance Cell and by applying the affinity test. 5. Except for the so-called entry in the certificate of the father of the petitioner as ’Mahadeo 3 Koli’, the caste of all other relatives of the petitioner and her father is recorded as ’Hindu Koli’. The petitioner’s father was not able to satisfy the affinity test and in his statement before the Committee he has specifically stated as under :- "I do not know our Kuldaivat, but I worship Ganpati. There is no traditional dance in our community. I am unaware about Gaonbaras, waghbaras. We celebrate Hindu festivals like Divali, Gauri, Ganpati, Akshaytrutiya etc. The surname of our relatives are Dhumal, Ranjane, Rokade, Sabele, etc. I am unaware about the Padkai and Gavaki systems." The aforesaid statement of the petitioner’s father itself indicates that his caste cannot be ’Mahadeo Koli’ and the certificate stands falsified on this count. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and another vs. Vilas s/o Govindrao Bokade and another reported in 2007 (3) Mh. L.J. 805 wherein a G.R. issued by the Government of Maharashtra was taken into consideration and the service of the petitioner was protected. We may be failing in our duty if we do not place on record that this argument has already been considered by us in an 4 earlier case in the light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Additional General Manager, Human Resource, BHEL Ltd., vs. Suresh Ram,krishna Burde, reported in (2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 1 and have come to the conclusion that as the petitioner is the central government employee the decision in the case of Punjab National Bank and another vs. Vilas s/o Govindrao Bokade and another (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 6. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The same is 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.)