1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2913 OF 2010 Chetan Krushnat Patole ... Petitioner's Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1, 2 and 4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2010. P.C. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 26.2.2010 holding that the Petitioner's claim that he belongs to “Thakar” scheduled tribe is not valid. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Perusal of the order shows that so far as recorded entries about the father of the Petitioner and other relatives are concerned, no definite conclusion can be reached on the basis of the entries. Some of the entries show them as “Hindu Maratha” and some of the entries show them as “Hindu Thakar”. The Scrutiny Committee which is a body consisting of experts, has conducted the affinity test and after conducting that test it has held that the Petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe. 2 Petitioner also claims that Mr. Vani, who is one of the Members of the Committee is not qualified tobe appointed. In view of the facts disclosed in the reply, we do not find any illegality in the appointment of Mr. Vani. Taking overall view of the matter, as it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has considered every relevant aspect of the matter and it being a body of experts, this court is not justified in interfering with their findings in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Constitution. Petition rejected. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)