1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2007 Shama Begum W/o Mohammed Latif.. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others.. .. Respondents Smt. A. M. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2. The petitioner obtained a caste certificate belonging to Mansoori, which is listed in Other Backward Class category in the State of Maharashtra. Admittedly, the petitioner is from the State of Uttar Pradesh, married to a person residing in the State 2 of Maharashtra in the year 1989. 3. The committee while verifying the caste claim of the petitioner observed that the petitioner was not residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to 13th October, 1967. She started residing after the year 1989, after she got married to a person who is resident of the State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is married to a person who belongs to Mansoori caste. The Mansoori caste is recognized as Other Backward Class in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. The petitioner is a migrant, who started residing in the State of Maharashtra, after she got married. Admittedly, the petitioner was not residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to the year 1967. The petitioner has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence in support of her caste claim. We therefore, do not find any error in the view adopted by the committee. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/April.10