1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5390 OF 2008. PETITIONER : Ku. Ambika Dinkar Donge, aged about 25 years, Occupation-Service, Resident of Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ghatpuri Naka, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. VS. RESPONDENTS : 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Irwin Chowk, Amravati. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. 3. The Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School (Boys), Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court s or Judge s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Amit Balpande Advocate for applicant. Shri Sambre, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Shri Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent no.2 to 4. 2 Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2009. 1. Heard Shri Amit Balpande Advocate for the Petitioner, Advocate Shri Sambre for Respondent no.1 and Shri Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondents no.2 to 4. 2. The contention of the Petitioner is that his caste claim as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated only after applying affinity test, but then without giving him opportunity to lead evidence in that respect though a specif request therefor was made on 21-5-07 while submitting his say on Police Vigilance Report. 3. With the assistance of learned Advocates, we have perused the impugned order dated 29-09-2008. The order shows that all documents considered by the Scrutiny Committee reveal the caste of the Petitioner as Thakur. However, by applying the Vigilance Cell, the 3 Committee has found that the Petitioner belongs to Thakur Upper Caste. Perusal of Vigilance Cell report shows that the statement of the father of the petitioner was recorded by the Vigilance Cell authorities. The Petitioner has thereafter on 21-5-1997 submitted a reply to the said report pointing out certain judgments of this Court and contended that in view of those judgments, the question of affinity was not relevant. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004 (1) Mh. L. J., 177] was specifically relied upon. Then the petitioner also stated that she wanted to examine her relative in support of her contention. The scrutiny Committee has thereafter, heard the Petitioner on 22-9-2008, but then there is nothing on record to show that on the said date, she was was permitted to lead evidence of her relatives on any 4 subsequent day, the matter was posted for recording of that evidence. The view of Division Bench mentioned above has been over ruled by the Hon ble Apex Court in its reported judgment in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar [2007 (2) Mh. L. J., 250]. The Full Bench of this Court has held that the affinity test is relevant in its judgment reported in Shilpa vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 (3) Mh.L.J.995. 4. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give to the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence to prove affinity. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 29-9-2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the matter is old, the decision be taken as early as possible, and in any case by 31 st July 2010. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 12-10-2009 and shall 5 abide by its directions thereafter. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/