(1) WP. 6890.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6890 OF 2008 Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Chand Raj PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Ms. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, contending that he belongs to the "Raj" Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the impugned orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and confirmed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee are erroneous. The petitioner had applied for a scheduled tribe certificate on the ground that he belongs to the "Raj" scheduled tribe. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the name of (2) WP. 6890.2008 the petitioner included the word "Raj", he should be considered as a person belonging to the "Raj" Scheduled tribe. 2. We have called upon the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner to show us a single document, in which the petitioner's tribe has been mentioned as "Raj" or a document pertaining to any relative of the petitioner prior to the Presidential Order of 1981. The learned Advocate was unable to show us any such document. The only document which is placed on record to indicate the caste as "Raj" is the school leaving certificate issued to the son of the petitioner on 20th June, 2003. In our opinion, it is not possible to accept the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there is any error in the orders impugned in the present Petition. We have considered the old documents which were produced before us but not a single document shows "Raj" as his caste. Petition rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp