-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3796 of 2009 Sitaram Ramsing Badiwale. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. C. K. Bhagnoji i/b Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Masurkar, GP for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 – State Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : August 3, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. The Petitioner claims a social status as Thakur, scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the Petitioner having found that the documents produced by the Petitioner in respect of himself are fake documents. It has been brought to our notice that the school leaving certificate issued by the Camps School, District School Board, Military Camp Area, Solapur was produced before the Scrutiny Committee. The said certificate is in respect of the father of the Petitioner. However, it was found in the enquiry that no such school was in existence in the said area of the Solapur City and the school run by the Corporation is located in that -: 2 :- area. Accordingly, the certificate has been given by the concerned Authority. Another certificate from Nityanand Shikshan Prasarak Seva Mandal’s Bapuji Primary School, Solapur was produced before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the said school has given a letter that the school leaving certificate is false one and in the General Register maintained by the said school, the name of the Petitioner does not appear at serial number 418 and the entry in the General Register of the School and the School Leaving Certificate do not tally with each other. This is a certificate in respect of the Petitioner himself. 2. Thus, an attempt is being made to get the caste validated on the basis of false caste certificate obtained by the Petitioner and/or manipulated or fabricated by the Petitioner. Though the claim is pending since 1998 before the Scrutiny Committee, i.e., after the appointment of the Petitioner with the Respondent No. 3, on perusal of the original file which is produced before us today, we have noticed that the Scrutiny Committee has issued notices after notices to the Petitioner but he did not attend the proceedings before it, possibly because he was aware of the fake documents produced by him before -: 3 :- the Scrutiny Committee and he wanted to take advantage of the pending proceedings so that his services would continue. Now, all these facts have become transparent. In our view the claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Scrutiny Committee for cogent reasons. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)