1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 447/2008 ( Chhayadevi Dinendrasinh Saraswar VERSUS Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.S. Charpe, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, counsel for the R-1. Mr. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, whereby the Committee has cancelled the caste certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate, Tiroda, District Bhandara. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order. The relevant observations of the impugned order reads thus----- The Government of India vide letter dated 22.3.1977 clarified that “Migrant” from one State to another State means :- (i) A person whose tribe is 2 scheduled as a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra State as well as in other State, but the ordinary residence of this person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order Scheduling her tribe (i.e. 6th September 1950) has been in the State other than Maharashtra. (ii) A person whose tribe is scheduled as Scheduled Tribe in any other State, but not in Maharashtra State. But, in the instant case “Thakur” is not scheduled as a tribe at all in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the candidate even cannot claim the Scheduled Tribe Status in her original State of Madhya Pradesh. The Candidate ought to have obtained a fresh Caste Certificate in the FORM “C-1” prescribed under Rule 5(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, only if the “Thakur” tribe appeared in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Rule 5(1)(c) makes it clear that “A Scheduled Tribe Certificate holder, who has migrated to Maharashtra from the State of 3 her origin for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe of the State of her origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of her origin and not from the State of Maharashtra.” The Rules 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) reflect the guidelines given by Government of India, vide their letter dated 22.3.1977. Therefore, the “Thakur” tribe not having been declared as a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the question of the candidate either claiming as a migrant or a Scheduled Tribe person does not arise at all. Similarly, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur has also taken into consideration the statements recorded by the Police Vigilance Officer as well as Characteristics, customs by applying affinity test. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, after taking into consideration all relevant factors, invalidated/ cancelled the caste claim of the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in our opinion is just and proper, and therefore, the incidental order passed by the Collector dated 08.01.2008 based on the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, in our view is also 4 sustainable in law. Consequently, no case is made out by the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE