1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5691/2010 Ku.Anikita Prakashrao Arulkar and another -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 : 21.06.2011. Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Jichkar, learned A.G.P. for respondents. We have heard the matter for about 10 minutes. We find that report of Vigilance Cell in the matter is dated 24.06.2010. Thereafter, on 07.07.2010 and 08.07.2010 the Scrutiny Committee has obtained some information. In the light of that information, a show cause notice dated 20.08.2010 was issued to the petitioner and she was called upon to explain why her 2 caste claim should not be invalidated. That show cause notice is not produced on record either by the petitioner or by the respondents. The records of respondent Committee available with the learned A.G.P. do not contain copy of that notice. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has relied on the validity given to her father and old entry in Kotwal book. The impugned order shows that shows that when father of petitioner was admitted in school on 04.07.1964, his caste was disclosed as “Teli”. His service book also reveals caste Teli, which was later on corrected as “Trimal”. The old Kotwal book was not available for perusal and the record containing the entry of grand-father of petitioner dated 17.05.1946 of village Pathrot revealed that caste Tirmal has been added by over-writing. Because of this material, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of petitioner. The petitioner before this Court is relying on the old entry dated 04.07.1921 only, taken in the Kotwal book. The Scrutiny Committee has already 3 found that the said old Kotwal Book is not available. There is no defence in relation to the entry of caste as Teli on 04.07.1964 in relation to father – Prakash or then why at the time of joining service his (Prakash) caste was recorded as Teli. There is no defence also in relation to over-writings in entry dated 17.05.1946 of grand-father – Tukaram, of present petitioner. In view of this, as burden to substantiate her caste claim is upon the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd