1 wp6018.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6018 OF 2010 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date : 19th July, 2011. . The petitioner has approached this Court against the decision of the Scrutiny Committee dated 22nd April, 2010, invalidating her caste claim. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, claimed that she belongs to the "Chhaparband, Vimukt Jati". According to her, her forefathers belong to this community and were known as Shah or Fakir. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2011, which has been issued, after the Government Resolution of 29th June, 2006 came up for consideration before the Nagpur Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition in which certain directions have been issued. The State has 2 wp6018.10 issued the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2011 with respect to the considerations to be observed by the Scrutiny Committee, while deciding whether the candidate who is a Muslim, belongs to the Chhaparband, Vimukt Jati. This Government Resolution indicates that when the words "Shah" or "Fakir" are appended to the names of the candidates or those of their forefathers, they should be considered as Muslims, who belonged to the Chhaparband, Vimukt Jati. 2. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. It appears from that decision that the Committee has not taken into consideration the Government Resolution of 29th June, 2006, which has now been replaced by Government Resolution of 23rd March, 2011, while dismissing the claim of the petitioner. 3. We have perused the documents on record and we find that there are some documents, which indicate that the forefathers of the petitioner had appended the word "Shah" to their name. The Revenue Record relating to the petitioner's ancestral property also shows the word "Fakir" with the name of the person. 3 wp6018.10 4. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the order impugned in the Petition is required to be set aside and the matter must be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee to decide it afresh. 5. The Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 5th September, 2011. The Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within four months from that date. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp6018.10