1 W.P.No.3916/07 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3916 OF 2007. Ganesh S/o Baburao Chavan, Age .. years, Occ.Student, R/o Govindnagar, Choudhari Colony, Chikalthana,Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, through its Director. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of SDO, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.C.Yeramwar, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Wagh, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.R.P.Phatake, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... 2 W.P.No.3916/07 CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 11.01.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The Caste Certificate of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe was referred for verification to the Respondent No.2 - Committee. The Respondent No.2 Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Yeramwar, learned counsel holding for Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had produced the validity certificate of the close 3 W.P.No.3916/07 blood relative testifying the case of the present petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The overwhelming evidence in this regard has not been considered by the Committee. The learned counsel further submitted that the record of his father, his sisters show the caste as "Thakur" but the Committee has rejected the claim only on the count that the petitioner has failed to establish affinity and ethnic linkage as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel submitted that the Vigilance Cell which conducted the inquiry, nowhere has discussed about the affinity and ethnic linkage in its report. On this count, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr.Phatake, learned counsel for the Respondent Committee submits that the petitioner has failed to establish the ethnic linkage and the affinity test. Thakur can be Hindus and also Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner could not establish with certainty that he belongs to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. In such circumstances, 4 W.P.No.3916/07 the Committee was not in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, we have gone through the record and the judgment delivered by the Committee. The documents on record depicts the petitioner as "Thakur" but the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim only on the count that the affinity and ethnic linkage could not be established by the petitioner. We have gone through the Vigilance Cell report. On going through the said report, it seems that the Vigilance Cell has only verified the documents but has not made any inquiry regarding the affinity and ethnic linkage. In such circumstances, it was erroneous on the part of the Scrutiny Committee to hold that the petitioner could not prove the affinity and ethnic linkage. When no inquiry was conducted in that regard by the Vigilance Cell or the Committee, it was erroneous on the part of the Committee to reject the claim of the petitioner only on the count that affinity and ethnic 5 W.P.No.3916/07 linkage is not established. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment of the Committee. The Committee shall direct the Vigilance Cell to make inquiry regarding the affinity and ethnic linkage and submit the report. The petitioner shall be given copy of the said report and an opportunity to put forth his say to the said report. The Committee shall thereafter decide the claim of the petitioner afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp391607 6 W.P.No.3916/07