(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11344 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11360 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 11344 OF 2010 Rohit s/o. Prakash Premalu, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Bhimnagar, Bhausingpura, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 11360 OF 2010 Nilam d/o. Prakash Premalu, Age : 23 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Bhimnagar, Bhausingpura, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... (3) Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. The petitioners, who are real brother and sister inter se, have approached this Court, with a grievance that the applications tendered by them, for issuance of caste certificate, have been turned down by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, vide order dated 14th December 2009, and the appeals tendered against the rejection of the request, have been turned down by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, vide order dated 10th August 2010. 3. In order to substantiate the claim of belonging to (4) "Mannerwarlu", Scheduled Tribe, the petitioners have relied upon their school record wherein the entry has been recorded in respect of caste as "Mannerwarlu", Scheduled Tribe. Apart from this, the petitioners have pointed out that their father, Prakash, is also possessed of a certificate certifying that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu", Scheduled Tribe, issued on 19th August 1988. Apart from these aspects, the Circle Inspector, on the basis of local inquiry, has also tendered a report that the petitioners appear to be belonging to "Mannerwarlu", Scheduled Tribe. In this view of the matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have considered the request for issuance of caste certificate in favour of the petitioners favourably. 4. It is recorded in several judgments delivered by this Court, that the considerations for issuance of caste certificate differ from the parameters which are required to be applied while issuing the validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. At the stage of issuance of caste certificate, only prima facie material is required to be scrutinized, as the caste certificate is amenable to further scrutiny at the stage of issuance of validity certificate. 5. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. (i) The impugned orders dated 14th December 2009, thereby (5) refusing to issue caste certificates in favour of the petitioners, as well as, the orders dated 10th August 2010, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby rejecting the appeals, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent no.3 is directed to issue caste certificates in the prescribed form, in favour of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above are only for the purposes of considering the claim of the petitioners for grant of caste (tribe) certificate and that the Committee shall not be influenced by the same at the stage of considering the claim of the petitioners for grant of caste (tribe) validity certificate. It would be open for the Scrutiny Committee to consider the matter on its own merits. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11344etc