1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 1048 OF 2007 Mahesh s/o. Babanrao Jadhav, age 19 years, occ. student, presently resident of Satpal Nagar, Hanuman Tekdi Parisar, Near Premchand Mugdiya D.Ed. College, Aurangabad. Permanent address: R/o. "Bappa Niwas", Shivajinagar, Tharmal Road, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. - - Petitioner versus 1. S.T.C.C. Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Kasmira Sadan, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad. 2. Examination Board for D.Ed. Maharashtra State, Pune through its Registrar. 3. Premchand Mugdiya D.Ed. College, Satpal Nagar, Hanuman Tekdi Parisar, Aurangabad through its Principal. - - Respondents. Shri S. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.1. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Reserved for orders on : 17th August 2009 Pronounced on : 29th August 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per N. D. Deshpande, J. ]: 1. In November 2006, the petitioner above named has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate order or direction mainly against respondent No.1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Caste Scrutiny Committee against its order dated 19-5-2006, issued on 29-6-2006 thereby negating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to `Koli Mahadeo Scheduled tribe' and his alleged tribe claim which was held invalid and further canceled and confiscated his caste certificate granted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Osmanabad bearing No. 1999/MAG/WS/241 dated 1-9-1999. 2. At the material time, petitioner was a student of Respondent No.3 Premchand Mugdiya D. Ed. College studying in 1st Year D. Ed. course and, therefore, interim relief for stay of the impugned order of the respondent No.1 aforesaid and restraining the 3 respondent No.3 from taking adverse action on the basis of the impugned order was also sought pending hearing of the petition. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent both the sides. 4. The petitioner obtained his Caste Certificate from Sub Divisional Officer, Osmanabad on 1-9-1999, belonging to Koli Mahadeo (Scheduled Tribe) and secured admission in the college of Respondent No.3 for D.Ed. course. Then he applied to respondent No.1 on 26-12-2005 for verification of his certificate of his caste claim and produced number of documents as mentioned in the list. 5. The respondent No.1 Committee held an inquiry through Vigilance Officer with reference to the trades and characteristics followed by Mahadeo Kolis. The report, which is at Exhibit B, a copy at page 13 of the paper book, was also submitted on record by the petitioner along with his caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer. It was admitted that the said report is against petitioner, however, petitioner contended that he has established his tribe claim as belonging to Mahadeo Koli on the 4 basis of these various documents which he produced at the time of personal hearing given to him on 25-4-2006 by respondent No.1 Committee. 6. The petitioner was not satisfied over the interview held on 24th April 2006 for they were not questioned about the traits and characteristics of Mahadeo Koli nor about Gods and Goddesses worshiped by Mahadeo Kolis so that they could be able to impress on the Committee that they belong to tribe Mahadeo Koli. They left with the impression that Respondent No.1 Committee was satisfied with the information given by them to the Vigilance Officer. The petitioner failed aggrieved when he came to know that respondent No. 1 Committee observed that petitioner having failed to prove the mutual affinity in its impugned order invalidating his tribe claim. Therefore, he filed this petition on the ground that the said observation is perverse and the same is contrary to the record i. e. V.C. report and relied on the judgment reported in the case of Ashwini Anil Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 415. The petitioner received copy of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 on 29-6-2006. 7. In support of his tribe claim, the petitioner relied on 5 respondent No.1's decision validating the tribe claim of his close relatives from paternal side. Thus, validity certificates and affidavits of his cousin from paternal side named, Nitin Uttamrao Jadhav and that of Anant Dyandeo Koli, cousin brother maternal side were also relied. 8. Petitioner admitted that respondent No.1 Committee relied mainly on the school record of his father whose caste is shown as Koli for invalidating his tribe claim of Mahadeo Koli. Petitioner urged that such entry of school leaving certificate cannot be considered as conclusive evidence to defeat his tribe claim as Mahadeo Koli. It was further stated that Mahadeo Koli is a species of genus caste Koli. 9. We have carefully gone through the averments and grounds stated in the petition and the annexures with reference to the impugned order of respondent No.1 Committee which is at Exhibit C at page 20 of the paper book. Shri Malte, Counsel for respondent No.1 Committee, made record of the Scrutiny Committee, available at the time of hearing for perusal and supported decision of the respondent No.1. 6 10. The powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are of judicial review. The respondent No.1 Committee mostly relied on the school record of the petitioner's father Baban Vithalrao Jadhav and found that his caste is recorded as Hindu Koli O.B. Most of his relatives on paternal side referred as cousin uncle and also real uncle Krunanath Vithal castes are also mentioned as Hindu or Hindu Koli. Admittedly, one Nitin Uttamrao Jadhav and Anant Dyandeo Koli are not close blood relations and, therefore, their validity certificates will be of no use to prove the tribe claim of the petitioner. There is no explanation given that the school record of the petitioner's father of his caste as Hindu Koli O.B. is wrong entry and the same was not challenged in order to rectify or correct the same by his father. It is equally true that son (petitioner) cannot claim a different caste than what is the caste of his father and the documentary evidence of his father's caste does not support his tribe claim. It is at variance. Similarly, his other close relatives record also refers their caste as "Koli Hindu". Therefore, Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected petitioner's tribe claim for want of proof. 7 11. Merely because applicant or the petitioner obtained caste certificate from Sub Divisional Officer or Executive Magistrate and filed an affidavit is not sufficient and good evidence for verification in order to validate his tribe claim as alleged. We do not find any fault with the procedure followed and the decision taken by the respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee in the case of the petitioner thereby rejecting his tribe claim. Thus, petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed with no orders as to costs. It is accordingly disposed of. Rule discharged. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp104807