1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4834 OF 2005 Maruti S/o Narsingrao Narsikar .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Maharashtra and others. .. .. Respondents Shri A. S. Bayas, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH CLOSED FOR ORDERS : 06.04.2010 DATE ON WHICH ORDER PRONOUNCED: 21/04/2010 ORDER [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.04.2005 of respondent No. 2/Committee for Scrutiny and 2 Verification of Tribe Claims of invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner belonging to "Koli Mahadev" (Scheduled Tribe). 02 Heard both sides. 03. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned order of respondent No. 2 for invalidating his tribe claim of "Koli Mahadev" (Scheduled Tribe). His case was referred to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 5/MSRTC as per communication dated 30.03.2000. He was selected for the post of driver in MSRTC/respondent No. 5. 04. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2, despite his school record and his relatives did not consider his claim. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 ought to have considered those entires of "Koli" as of description for the generic caste, "Kolis" and "Mahadev Koli" as species thereof and as such scrutiny committee misinterpreted the said record as contra evidence to disprove the petitioner's tribe claim of "Mahadev Koli". "Koli" entries found in various documents, namely school record crept in by mistake, while admitting children in school mainly due to illiteracy in the 3 family and ignorance. 05. Perused the impugned order in the light of the submissions made by both the parties and the authorities relied by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the judgment reported in 2004 (4) All M. R. 815 Prabhu Narayan Survase Vs. State of Maharashtra and others the relevant portion is reproduced as below : "what emerges is that, it is not open to the Committee to reject the documentary evidence produced, mainly on the ground that it is of recent origin without considering the probative value. A burden is cast on the authorities in finding out the correctness or otherwise of these documents". 06. However, learned counsel for the respondent Committee urged that in the present case, the petitioner failed to establish his tribe claim for want of documentary evidence. 07. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Committee affidavit in reply came to be filed and original case papers are also made available by the respondent No. 2/Committee at the time of hearing. Perused the affidavit in reply and the original papers submitted 4 in support of the impugned order. 08. It is undisputed that every case has to be considered on its own merits and the petitioner has to discharge the burden of establishing his claim. It is also undisputed that vigilance report was duly served on the petitioner and he was heard. During the course of hearing it revealed that the real surname of the petitioner is Battewad. The petitioner did not submit any reply or say to the vigilance cell report. It is also found that the vigilance officer collected some information and record about education of the petitioners near relatives namely uncle Digamber, real brother Bhanudas Nasingrao Battewad and cousin sister Yamunabai, whose caste is mentioned as "Koli". It is also found that the respondent No. 2/Committee has taken into consideration all documents produced by the petitioner and did not get any material evidence supporting his tribe claim. On the contrary the above mentioned documents of his real uncle and the brother refers them as "Koli". The respondent No. 2/Committee also observed that most of the documents referred are of the relatives of the applicant's wife and they are not the blood relatives of the petitioner. It is further observed that, the petitioner utterly failed to show his affinity towards the 5 "Mahadev Koli" (Scheduled Tribe). 09. After considering all documents and information furnished by the candidate as well as considering the inquiry report and after going through the compilation of the authorities, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner. The petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10