1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3878 OF 2003 Shri Laxman Kisan Wad ..... Petitioner. v/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. A.M. Vernekar for respondent No.3. ------ CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 21st February 2008. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, holding that the Petitioner's claim that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe is not valid. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the claim of the Petitioner that his natural father belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe though his adoptive father did not belong to that Tribe. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioner is entitled to claim that despite his adoption by a person who does not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe, he belongs to the Caste and Tribe of his natural father, he still has to 2 establish that his natural father belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. 2. We have examined the record. We find from the record that the only document relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his case that his natural father's caste was Mahadeo Koli, was 7 x 12 Extract wherein entry is made as "Adiwasi Khatedar". We have gone through that document . In that document, name of the occupant of the land is mentioned as "Rambhu Mayanji Pedhekar". That document has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and it has said that there is no material on record to show as to how that document is connected to the Petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit of the person whose name is mentioned in that document, claiming that he is related to the petitioner in any way, either before adoption of the petitioner or after adoption. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of his natural father. Even that affidavit does not make reference to the document on which the petitioner is relying. Even if it is assumed that the person whose name is mentioned in that document is related to the petitioner, it is not shown as to why that entry has been made. Entries in 7 x 12 extract are taken by Talathi and certified by Tahsildar. By no stretch of imagination, they can be called as experts or knowledgeable on the question whether a person belongs to the Scheduled Tribe or not. Therefore, merely on the basis of that document, conclusion cannot be recorded that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the material that is placed on record, we do not find any fault with the order of the Scrutiny Committee. 3 3. Petition has no substance. It is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe for a period of six weeks from today. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4