1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4804 OF 2009 Renuka d/o Ramchandra Boinwad @ Renuka @ Kavita w/o Ganesh Faskalwad ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.B. Gastgar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and 3 Mr. R.P.Phatke, advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. P.P. Dama, advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31.3.2009, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the finding that the basic documents in the form of school record of the petitioner's father, uncle and aunt goes to show that the family belongs to caste Koli, which is 2 recognized as Special Backward Class in the State of Maharashtra. That position has been observed even in the Vigilance Cell report at page 67 dated 21.1.2006. The petitioner however, relies on the extract of the register maintained in the office of the Collector, Parbhani, pertaining to 1352 Fasli, which mentions the caste of the petitioner’s great grand father as Mahadeo Koli. This document, however, is produced in the present petition for the first time and was not pressed into service before the Committee. 3 The assertion made in the petition in para 6 and end of para 7 is that the petitioner was under impression that she would get opportunity to produce the said document before the Committee at the time of fresh Vigilance enquiry. This assumption is a figment of imagination of the petitioner. We say so, because the petitioner had approached this Court on the earlier occasion and while allowing writ petition on 10.2.2009, being writ petition No. 593 of 2009, this Court remanded the proceeding before the Scrutiny Committee. There is nothing in the said order to even remotely indicate that the court intended to direct the Scrutiny Committee to undertake fresh Vigilance Cell enquiry. Moreover, the grievance before this Court in the earlier round of litigation was about no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. When the matter went back before the Scrutiny committee, besides making appearance before the Scrutiny committee, the petitioner did not think it necessary to produce any further evidence or 3 material. In that backdrop, the Scrutiny committee legitimately proceeded to examine only the material already on its file. Even the purport of remand order by this Court would have obliged, the Scrutiny committee only to examine the record already before it or at best any other document to be produced by the petitioner. As aforesaid, the petitioner failed to produce any further document before the Committee. For that reason, the document at page 37 viz. extract of the register maintained by the Collector, Parbhani, referred to above, cannot be looked into. On the other hand, we find that the committee has scrutinized the efficacy of the documents pressed into service by the petitioner and has found as of fact that in all the basic documents pertaining to father, uncle and aunt of the petitioner indicate that the family belongs to caste Koli and not Mahadeo Koli. The petitioner however, relies on the validation certificate issued in favour of her husband dated 16.3.2006 at page 51. We would proceed on the basis that this document was placed on record before the Scrutiny committee. However, that would only establish the caste of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner was obliged to establish that her father belongs to caste Mahadeo Koli. That evidence is not forthcoming. The document regarding father’s caste however, indicate that the family’s caste is Koli. 4 The Scrutiny committee has also found that the certificates of relatives relied by the petitioner were also of no avail, as the relatives 4 were not parental blood relatives. The finding of facts, so recorded, in our view, cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless it is further shown that the same is manifestly wrong or perverse. That is not the argument canvassed before us. 5 Counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the committee ought to have considered the effect of affinity test, which would answer the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Mahadeo Koli. However, in the present case, as noticed earlier, the petitioner has produced the basic documents which indicate that her family belongs to caste Koli and not Mahadeo Koli. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rely merely on affinity test to answer the claim of the petitioner. The Petitioner relies on full Bench decision of our Court in Shilpa Thakur Vs. State, reported in 2009 (4) All M R 127. The full Bench on analyzing the decision on the point has restated the settled legal position that the claim of a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Tribe is not merely to be confined to examination of the documentary evidence but would involve an investigation of the affinity of the candidate with a tribe. In the present case, the Scrutiny Committee has found as of fact that the Petitioner has utterly failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage towards the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. We do not find any tangible basis to overturn this finding of fact. 5 6 In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. *****