1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1890 OF 2006 Kum. Sujata D/o Dattatraya Shirgurwar, Age : 22 years, Occu. : Education, R/o At Pot Dehali, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. Through brother/power of attorney holder Deepak Dattatray Shirgurwar Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Unemployed, R/o As above. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, through its Dy. Director (R) M. S. Aurangabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Kinwat, District Nanded. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT : 22/04/2010 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06/05/2010 JUDGMENT [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties. 02. The petitioner by this petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee dated 19.08.2005 thereby invalidting her tribe claim belonging to "Mannervarlu" (Scheduled Tribe). 03. Heard both the sides, at the stage of admission with consent of parties. 04. The petitioner claimed herself to be belonging to "Mannervarlu" caste (Scheduled Tribe) and obtained the caste certificate dated 20.12.1988 from Tahsildar and Taluka Magistrate Kinwat on production of certificate of sarpanch, police 3 patil, her school leaving certificate, affidavit and report of talathi. The power of attorney holder Deepak is her elder brother. 05. The petitioner contended that her caste as "Mannervarlu" (S.T.) figured in school admission extract dated 25.10.2005. Even at the time of her admission in Central Primary School Daheli in Ist standard on 02.07.1989, her caste was mentioned as "Mannervarlu". Similarly her two elder sisters by name Sunita and Baby and also brother named Deepak were also admitted in school. Their caste was mentioned as "Mannervarlu" in the year 1981. Thus, there is school record of the family members of the year 1981 having caste as "Mannervarlu". It is further stated that Tahsildar Kinwat had issued a caste certificate of "Mannervarlu" to her grand father by name Sambhaji S/o Bapuji Shirgurwar on 04.05.1979. Her father also obtained caste certificate dated 26.02.1991 of "Mannervarlu" from Tahsildar Kinwat. Besides these certificates petitioner also relied on caste validity certificate issued to her relative and khasra patrak, from maternal side. The petitioner further contended that, there is nothing adverse found in the Vigilance Cell report dated 07.01.2003 and 25.10.2004. 4 06. Undisputedly, all these documents namely school record of the petitioner's brother and sisters, caste certificate of the petitioner's father and grand father, validity certificate issued to her relative have been referred by the Scrutiny Committee, but those were not considered as evidence to establish her caste as "Munnervarlu" as they are of very recent period of 1989 to 1996 and the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee rejected her claim mainly on the ground that the caste of the petitioners father is recorded as "Mannerwar" in the school record of the Zilla Parishad High School, Kinwat of the year 1962-1963, where he studied up to IXth standard. Therefore, the petitioner drew our attention to a school extract of Central Primary School, Mahoor, where he was admitted in IVth standard and studied up to VIth standard during 25.06.1959 to 14.07.1960, where petitioner's father's caste is recorded as "Munnervarlu". It has been pointed out that previous school extract issued by Central Primary School, Mahoor was not considered by the scrutiny committee/respondent No. 2 and it is the oldest record of 1959. Earlier to that her father took primary education in Primary School Daheli, but there is no record available earlier to 1959 regarding his primary education from Ist standard to IVth standard. The petitioner relied on school record of 1959 of her 5 father for the caste entry of "Munnervarlu" and also on the vigilance cell report confirming the same and reported in her favour. 07. In the light of above submissions, we have minutely scrutinized the impugned order of respondent No. 2. The original record from the office of Scrutiny Committee is also made available at the time of hearing. Perused the documents. It is thus, found that the petitioner's father's caste as "Munnervarlu" is found in the previous school record of Central Primary School, Mahoor of the year 1959. In fact, previous school record extract of Central Primary School, Mahoor, which is in favour of the petitioner's father for caste "Munnervarlu" is having more probative value than the school record extract of her father issued by Zilla Parishad High School, Kinwat of the year 1962 for the caste "Munnerwar". It should have been inconformity with the previous school record of Central Primary School, Mahoor. Therefore, such entry of caste 'Munnerwar' would be considered as mistaken entry. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be accepted, in the light of the observations made above. 6 08. Upon consideration of record and the submissions of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the decision of the scrutiny committee in rejecting claim of the petitioner is not in accordance with the material placed before it. It ought to have taken into consideration the previous caste entry of "Munnervarlu" found in the school record together with vigilance cell reports. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to Scrutiny Committee to consider all these documents afresh. To that extent the petition deserves to be allowed. 09. The impugned order dated 19.08.2005 is set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for consideration of all the documents and for its decision afresh. The petitioner shall co-operate with the committee. The committee shall pass a reasoned order within three months from the receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner. Rule made absolute in the above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/May 10