1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2138 OF 2009 Chandrakant s/o. Arjun Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents Mr. V.Y Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1,3, 4 and 5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th March, 2007, passed by the respondent No.2 – Committee, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Kunbi caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC). 2] Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner made 3 fold submissions in support of the petition, as under :- 2 I. That, the caste certificates of the relatives have not been taken into consideration; II. That, affinity test, as required by the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of “ Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995, has not been carried out; III. That, Home Enquiry, as required under the procedure has not been conducted. 4] In so far as the first contention is concerned, from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the Committee has found that the petitioner had failed to produce on record any document prior t 1967 which would show that he belongs to Kunbi caste. It has been found that, on the contrary, all the documents would show that the caste of the petitioner, his father and grand- father is “Maratha”. 5] In so far as the second contention of the petitioner regarding affinity test not being complied is concerned, the Full Bench in the matter of “Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra” (supra) was considering the mater regarding verification of the claim of a tribal. The procedure for verification of the claim of tribal can not be said to be ipso-facto applicable while conducting the inquiry pertaining to the caste claim of the OBCs. 6] In so far as the enquiry by the Vigilance Cell is concerned, it can be seen that the vigilance committee had made 3 an enquiry and submitted its report to the committee on 18th August, 206. From the perusal of the said enquiry, which is placed on record of the petition, it could be seen that though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, the petitioner neither submitted any document, nor did he remain present before the Vigilance Committee. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the grievance of the petitioner in this respect is justified. 7] Perusal of the record would reveal that the caste of the petitioner, namely, Chandrakant, caste of his father – Arjun, and caste of his grand-father Hari and Hari's Brother Narayan, has been recorded as “Maratha” in all the documents. Not only this, but the documentary evidence pertaining to the petitioner's brother would also show that his caste is recorded as “Maratha”. The respondent NO.2 committee, performs a quasi judicial function. The said Committee, on the basis of the material placed on record, had found that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish his claim as belonging to “Kunbi” caste. Even in the petition, there is no explanation as to why the caste of the petitioner, his father and grandfather is consistently recorded as “Maratha”. 8] The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the caste of “ Jagannath D. Hole Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, reported in 2006(1) AIR Bom. R. 365 wherein it has been held that prior to 1920, caste were mentioned on the basis of occupation of the persons and as such, entries prior to 1920, would not be of much relevance while determining the claim of a person. 4 9] In the present case, we can clearly see that all the documents prior to 1961, i.e. the date on which “Kunbi” caste was recognized as Other Backward Class, would show that the caste of the petitioner and his ancestors is “Maratha”. We are also informed that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in “Jagannath's case” has been confirmed by the Apex Court. 10] In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that the interim orders passed earlier shall stand vacated. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/wp2138.07