119mca275.06.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA (Review) No.275 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 3722 of 2005 (D) (Nandkishor s/o. Shriram Solanki .vs. The Div. Caste Scrutiny Committee and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha & P.B.Varale, JJ. Date : 11/09/2009. Heard Mr. P. B. Patil, Adv. for applicant and Mr.S.J.JIchkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. In the instant case, Counsel for the review petitioner states that the present review petition is filed in the year 2006 for review of the order dt. 16.8.2005. It is contended that, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, only on the basis of old document pertaining to the grandfather of petitioner where the caste of grand father of the petitioner was shown as “Rajput”, rejected other documents filed by the petitioner in support of his caste claim. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was based on the documentary evidence alone, whereas the Committee did not apply the affirmity test and therefore, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is bad in law in view of decision of the Full 119mca275.06.odt 2 . Bench reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995, Shilpa Vishnu Thakur .vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. It is, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Division Bench, which is impugned in the present review petition, also does not survive for the same reason and therefore, needs to be reviewed. Mr. Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Committee has submitted that, considering the limited jurisdiction of this Court, the above referred contention canvassed by the counsel for review petitioner cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that, at the relevant time, when the Caste Scrutiny Committee decided the caste verification proceedings, it was open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reject the caste claim of the petitioner on the basis of the documentary evidence and in the instant case, the document which was relied upon by the Committee was the oldest document pertaining to the grandfather of petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that no case is made out for showing indulgence. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is a well settled position in law that, all the judicial decisions pronounced by this Court are prospective in operation unless, in the exceptional circumstances, for some special reason, the situation is otherwise. It is not in dispute that, at the 119mca275.06.odt 3 . relevant time, on the basis of documentary evidence, it was open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner one way or the other. A person inherits his caste by birth and therefore, the document pertaining to grandfather of petitioner wherein the caste is shown as “Rajput” was relied upon by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in order to hold that the petitioner failed to establish that he belonged to “Rajput Bhanta” (VJNT) caste. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order passed by the Committee and in our view, rightly so. The order was passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee has already reached finalty long time ago and therefore, subsequent decision of the Full Bench on the issue, in our view, would not affect the validity of the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has attained finalty, prior to coming into force the law declared by the decision of the Full Bench. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais