1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4909 OF 2009 Anil Laxman Ghate ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 Mr.Asokan, Advocate, for respondent No.3 CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . Rule with the consent of the parties, returnable forthwith and heard. 2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order dated 31st March, 2009, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Pune, by which Order the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the Caste claim of the 2 petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe). 3. The petitioner is in employment of respondent No.3, who referred the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribes) to the Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune. The said reference was made on 2nd July, 2002. Before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner produced number of documents which have been reflected in the Order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee had also directed the Vigilance Cell to submit its Report and accordingly, the Vigilance Cell Report was obtained by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the documents produced on record came to a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe) and therefore, invalidated the Caste claim of the petitioner. 3 4. Amongst the documents considered by the Scrutiny Committee, was the document namely the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's father wherein the Caste is recorded as Hindu Koli. The Scrutiny Committee did not lay any emphasis on the probative value of the Certificate of the petitioner's uncle as belonging to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe) on the ground that in view of the Certificate of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's Caste could not be different. 5. The petitioner was also subjected to the affinity test and the information relating to the said affinity test has been mentioned in the Order which appears at page No.22 of the paperbook. The said information has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee merely by branding it as bookish knowledge. The affinity test as is well settled is one of the important ingredients which the Scrutiny Committee has to consider while accepting or rejecting the Caste claim. If the Scrutiny 4 Committee was dissatisfied with the information or knowledge disclosed by the petitioner of the traits and characteristics of the said Caste, the Scrutiny Committee could have subjected the petitioner to cross examination so as to satisfy itself that the petitioner has affinity to the said Caste. The Scrutiny Committee could not have rejected the said knowledge and information disclosed by the petitioner by merely branding it as bookish. In our view, therefore, on the said limited ground the Order of the Scrutiny Committee is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee on the said limited aspect. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 31st March, 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for subjecting the petitioner to a fresh affinity test in terms of the directions as contained hereinabove. On such remand, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final Order within a period of four weeks from date. Rule is 5 accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6. Insofar as challenge to the termination Order dated 27th July, 2009, passed by respondent No.4 which has been incorporated by way of amendment to the above Writ Petition, we do not express any opinion at this stage and reserve the right of the petitioner to challenge the same as and when the contingency arises depending upon the decision of the Scrutiny Committee on remand. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )