1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2007 Preeti D/o Gangadhar Rokdewad .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Maharashtra and others. .. .. Respondents Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 6. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No7. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH CLOSED FOR ORDERS : 23.03.2010 DATE ON WHICH ORDER PRONOUNCED: 07/04/2010 ORDER [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. Heard both sides. 2 02. By the present petition, the petitioner named above seeks to challenge order of respondent No. 2/Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad dated 10.11.2006 rejecting her tribe claim (impugned order) and to issue direction of remand to the Committee for deciding her tribe claim. 03. The petition is directed mainly against the respondents No. 2's order dated 10.11.2006 of rejection of her tribe claim, invalidating the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 Executive Magistrate Aurangabad. The petitioner claimed herself belonging to "Mahadeo Koli" (Scheduled Tribe) community on the basis of the caste certificate dated 19.08.1993 and was provisionally admitted in college of respondent No. 5 for D.Ed. course and successfully completed the D.Ed. course. By amendment dated 16.02.2009, it is further submitted that she has been selected for appointment to the post of primary teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, which is newly added respondent No. 7 by amendment order dated 19.01.2009. 04. The impugned decision of respondent No. 2 is assailed 3 mainly on the ground that it failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner namely school record right from her primary education, so also the school record of her real brother Vinod, where the entry of "Mahadev Koli" is recorded. As such, competent authority was pleased to issue caste certificates to her and other relatives namely father, real brother and paternal cousin that they are belonging to "Mahadev Koli" Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner further relied on the caste validity certificate issued to her close blood relative S. G. Ghantewad by the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik by order dated 27.01.1998, who is her maternal cousin in relation. Her father's service record shows entry as "Mahadev Koli". 05. The petitioner further stated that she has explained in her reply dated 16.10.2006 the adverse entries found in the school record of her paternal aunt Savitri. The said reply was given to the vigilance cell inquiry report dated 13.02.2006 wherein, she had explained that the said entries found in the school record of her aunt and that of her sister were wrongly taken by the school teacher. The petitioner urged that she stood well to the affinity test, however, by a cryptic order, the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee rejected her tribe claim. Learned counsel Shri 4 Golegaonkar for the petitioner relied on Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995 Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others and urged to consider the affinity test as an integral part and process of verification, and the verification of the claim and the inquiry in that regard should not be confined to the examination of birth and school record, but would involve the investigation of affinity of a candidate with a tribe or tribal community. 06. We have perused the impugned order of the respondent No. 2/Committee. The original record is also made available by the Scrutiny Committee for perusal and the Full Bench decision (supra) which refers to Thakur community. Learned counsel Shri Malte for the respondent No. 2/Committee also referred to couple of judgments of this Court. 07. It is undisputed that each case has to be decided on its own merits. It is seen that petitioner was served with the copy of vigilance cell inquiry report and also given opportunity of personal hearing before the committee on 30.09.2006 along with elderly persons of her family. The impugned order refers to all 15 documents submitted by the petitioner and those were taken into 5 consideration by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee. 08. On perusal of the record of the Scrutiny Committee, it revealed that petitioner did not possess any document prior to 1950. It is also admitted by the petitioner that her father's and sister's school record has a entry of Hindu Koli and such entry crept in by mistake as their family was known in the village as "Koli's". Her parents are illiterate and did not correct said entry of Koli in school record. We did not find the service record of the petitioner's father except a certificate of discharge from service in the year 1984 as "Mahadev Koli", which did not get any supportive evidence. Thus, the respondent No. 2/Committee did not get any material evidence of the blood relations about "Mahadev Koli" and therefore, the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee did not accept the caste validity certificate of one S. G. Ghantewad who is not a blood relative and who is stated to be her maternal cousin in relation. The scrutiny Committee after scrutiny of material produced before it further observed that petitioner is not associated with the rural scheduled tribe community people and it is referred into affinity test, where she failed. 6 09. Thus, considering the limited scope of judicial review, no case is made out for any interference. The petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Needless to state that, interim relief if any granted earlier stands vacated. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10