{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6346 OF 2009 Archana Piraji Atpelwar R/o Degloor, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 24th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and {2} order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 05.02.2009 by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the application of the petitioner for issuance of a caste certificate. 3. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor on 12.11.2008 seeking caste certificate claiming to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had produced various documents along with the said application, including caste certificate issued in favour of father of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer, by ignoring these documents, rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 05.02.2009 by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner, along with the application, are not sufficient to issue caste certificate as prayed for. It further appears that being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. However, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 30.03.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and uphold the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The said orders are impugned in this petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the caste certificate issued in favour of father of the petitioner dated 07.11.1979. The said document was on record before the Sub Divisional Officer and Scrutiny Committee. However, it appears that by {3} the authorities have not considered the said document at all. It is but natural that the daughter is entitled for the caste of her father. In the premise, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, are erroneous and hence are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad and dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. We direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to forthwith issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 6. Needless to state that the caste certificate to be issued will be subject to verification by the competent scrutiny committee. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6346-09