1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3160/2007 Ms. Jyoti Singh ..vs.. State & ors. =================================== Mr. N.S. Badhe, Advocate for petitioner . Mr. Deopujari, A.G.P. for respondents no. 1,2 & 4. =================================== CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE:20.6.2008 P.C. Heard counsel for the parties. It is common ground that “Jatav” community is notified as Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh. It is also accepted position that petitioner is “Jatav” from Uttar Pradesh. If this is so, it is well settled position that petitioner can not avail of any benefit of Scheduled Caste which is earmarked for Scheduled Caste, covered by Order notified in Maharashtra. It is in that context the Caste Scrutiny Committee has declined to examine the issue of validity of the caste claim of the petitioner. No fault can be found with the approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as no fruitful purpose would be served in examining the said issue at the instance of the petitioner who in any case would not be entitled for any benefit as Scheduled Caste in Maharashtra. It is not necessary for us to address the larger question, whether the Scrutiny Committee in Maharashtra would be competent to examine the issue of validity of 2 caste claim in relation to some other State. Mere fact that person has shifted and settled down in some other state, would not empower the Caste Scrutiny Committee of that State, to examine the question of validity of caste claim of such person. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee in Utter Pradesh for validation of the caste claim of the petitioner as “Jatav” in Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE smp.