1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR M.C.A. NO. 807/11 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2687 OF 2009 Mrs. Rohini w/o Mohan Madyala @ Ramila Kumari Narsinghrao Chalmela .vs. State of Maharashtra & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for applicant/petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. Heard. 2] The applicant/petitioner has preferred this Review Application in respect of the judgment and order dated 18.2.2011 by which this Court had refused to interfere with the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee holding that the applicant is not entitled to validity in respect of her caste claim as ‘Mannewar’ - Scheduled Tribe. 3] Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Advocate for applicant/ petitioner, submitted that the review application is based on the fact that the two relatives on the paternal side had been granted 2 caste validity certificate earlier and those orders were annexed to the petition but were not pointed out by the Advocate who argued the matter. Thus, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale .vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others reported in 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be entitled to the claim that she belongs to Mannewar community without any further enquiry. 4] The learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted on the basis of the judgments in Board of Control for Cricket, India and another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 592 and Mt. Jamna Kuer .vs. Lal Bahadur and others reported in AIR (37) 1950 Federal Court 131 that the mistake of an Advocate in not pointing out the documents ought not to come in the way if the petitioner is otherwise right in law. There is no doubt that a litigant ought not to be visited with a liability because of an error on the part of his Advocate generally but it is equally not in doubt that the circumstances of the case must be considered. 5] We find from the record that the present applicant did not at any point of time in the proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred to the fact now sought to be argued 3 in the Review Application that her relatives on the paternal side had been granted caste validity as belonging to Mannewar. In the judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale relied upon by Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Advocate for applicant/petitioner, this Court observed that if the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that the blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as claimed by the applicant in the course of an enquiry before the Committee, then the Committee must grant the same status to the candidate. It was not intended that a candidate should be exempted from making any claim before the Committee and having the claim verified or tested in cross-examination or through the police vigilance procedure. In fact, notably in the present case, the parity claimed was not even pointed out to this Court. 6] Mr. N.W. Sambre, learned G.P. for respondent Committee, has stated that the Committee has found the caste claim of the petitioner to be false and has observed in paragraph no.1 of the order that she has purposefully made a false statement that her father is illiterate in order to obtain a certificate. The learned Counsel further stated that the Committee would initiate proceedings for recall of the earlier caste certificates issued to the petitioner’s relatives in terms of the judgment in Apoorva’s case (cited supra). That apart, we find that there is no sufficient reason to review the order of this Court particularly in view of the fact that 4 this contention was nowhere raised before the Committee and nor was any document placed before the Committee before it arrived at this decision. It would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit parties to have decided cases reopened on grounds not present to the mind of the parties and on evidence which was not before the Committee. 7] The application is hence rejected. 8] Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Advocate for applicant/ petitioner, at this juncture seeks continuation of the protection granted by this Court to the petitioner’s employment when the petition was pending. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the protection shall be continued for a period of four weeks from today. Judge Judge J.