1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 5811/2010 Shri Tarachand Panchkodilal Ludhiyane vs.State of Maharashtra and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. S.S.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE : 14.12.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition. This petition is directed against the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Scrutiny Committee has recorded a finding of fact that the father of the petitioner was born on 1.8.1940 at Shivoni (Madhya Pradesh) and applicant's relatives are not living at Maharashtra and no evidence is found in that behalf. The documents on record show that he belongs to the “chamar caste” i.e. Scheduled caste. There is no evidence to show that the forefathers of the applicant were living in the State of Maharashtra on 10.3.1950. The Full Bench of this Court in Shweta 2` Santalal Lal vs.State of Maharashtra (2010(2)Mh.L.J. 904 has taken a view which reads as under: “Having said so, we may now answer the Reference. In case of a migrant belonging to a Scheduled Caste, not ordinarily resident as on 10.3.1950 in the area that now constitutes the State of Maharashtra and in a case of S.T., considering Rule 5, on 6.9.1950, would not be entitled to benefits of reservation as S.C./S.T. In the State of Maharashtra. They and their progeny will continue to get the benefits of reservation in the State of origin. Reference answered accordingly.” In view of the Judgment of the full Bench, the view taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee can not be faulted with. The petition is without any substance. The petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 3`