1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4548/2010. Nikhilesh Badalsingh Raghuwanshi -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 23.06.2011. Heard Shri Godbole, learned Counsel holding for Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mrs. T.D. Khade, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Jichkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has made a request for adjournment, however, we have rejected that request. Learned counsel for respondents have placed their respective 2 contention before the Court. After hearing the parties we find that while invalidating the caste claim of petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee has specifically found that the certificate of father showing that his caste was recorded as Rajput Bhamta was a bogus document. The Vigilance Cell had visited Sangamner Nagar Palika and it found that there was no entry showing that petitioners father namely - Badalsingh was admitted on 16.06.1958 in that school. The Administrative Officer of the Municipal Education Board has accordingly given a letter on 15.10.2009 to the Committee. It is, therefore, obvious that on the strength of a bogus document, the caste claim was pressed into service. During arguments, out attention has been invited to the validity given to real sister Swapna. Perusal of the Vigilance Cell report in that case reveals that, that report is on the basis of the verification of records of the Municipal Council, Sangamner and hence the communication 3 received from the Headmaster of that School was only acted upon. It is, therefore, obvious that the validity given to the sister of petitioner is entirely on the basis of different evidence and the material looked into by the Scrutiny Committee while denying it to the petitioner was not then available. In this situation, we do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd