(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2001 Kum. Tejaswini Pralhad Pachrupe, Age : Minor, Occupation : Student, Through her father & natural guardian, Mr. Pralhad Ashru Pachrupe, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service in Bank, 74, Ramtara Hsg. Society, Shahanurwadi, Aurangabad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate, Verification Committee, M.S., Nasik. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (2) ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The present petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe. As the petitioner was desirous of claiming benefits attached to the said tribe, the petitioner obtained a certificate that she belongs to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe, from the competent authority. The caste (tribe) claim of the petitioner was referred to the Committee when the petitioner was partaking education in 12th Standard. The claim of the petitioner, to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe, is rejected by the Committee and aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The Committee had directed the Vigilance Cell to make school and home enquiry and submit its report. Perusal of (3) the Vigilance Cell report reveals that the primary school record of the petitioner, so also, of her father, was checked and the authority found that the primary school record of the petitioner's father clearly reveal the mention of "Hindu Mahadeo Koli" in the caste column. 4. As some dispute was sought to be raised in regard to the correctness of the entry in the primary school record of the father of the petitioner, we had requested the learned Assistant Government Pleader to obtain the original record from the concerned school and we have perused the record. It is clearly seen from the record of the year 1959, that the father of the petitioner was admitted in the said school in 1st Standard. There is no interpolation in the primary school record of the petitioner's father. The primary school record of the petitioner, as well, clearly indicate that she belongs to "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe. However, in the school leaving certificate issued to the petitioner from the secondary school, her caste is shown to be "Koli, Scheduled Tribe". 5. The Scrutiny Committee, despite the facts that the petitioner's father's primary school record reveal "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", so also, in spite of the fact that the primary school record of the petitioner shows that she belongs to "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", has chosen to place reliance on recording of the (4) caste (tribe) "Koli, Scheduled Tribe" which is reflected in the school leaving certificate of a secondary school. This is obviously incorrect. More probative value ought to be attached to primary school record of the father of the petitioner. Hardly any evidentiary value need to be attached to the record of the petitioner's caste (tribe) in her secondary school record, more so, when the primary school record was in favour of the present petitioner. 6. The oldest document available with the petitioner is that of the petitioner's father's primary school record of the year 1959. The said document is brushed aside by the Committee, by making one line observation saying that it is very recent. The Committee ought to take into consideration all available material and evidence on record and need to decide on the caste (tribe) claim of the claimant having regard to the cumulative effect of the record and material available with it which, in turn, would also include the affinity test. The claim ought not to be rejected only on one of the said counts. 7. Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Committee, submitted that the matter could be remanded back to the Committee for a de novo decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this court. (5) 8. In the result, as we find that the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is not sustainable in law, as it fails to consider the material evidence in proper perspective, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Committee for a fresh decision. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 29th May 2000, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, thereby invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee for a fresh decision regarding tribe claim of the petitioner, in the light of the observations made above. (ii) Needless to mention, that the fresh decision to be reached by the Committee shall be so taken, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six months from today. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 27th January 2010 and in that view of the matter, no notices ought to be issued by the Committee to the petitioner, in regard to further dates. (6) 10. Rule made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1212