: 1 : wp.1722.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1722 OF 2011 Rajendrakumar Biharilal Ram .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 ORDER (PER SMT.MHATRE, J.): 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.1.2011 issued by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short, `Scrutiny Committee’) declaring that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits and concessions available to Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra, being a migrant from the State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Collector, Mumbai City, issued a caste certificate on 5.6.2003 in favour of the petitioner indicating that he belonged to the : 2 : wp.1722.2011 “Chambhar” Scheduled Caste. On the basis of this certificate, the petitioner was admitted to the Respondent No.4 College in the MCA Post Graduate degree course in the reserved category. During the academic year 2007-2008, the College referred the petitioner's caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for validation. The Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and a report was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee on 12.5.2010. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee on 18.11.2010 seeking proof of his permanent residence in the State of Maharashtra on and from 10.8.1950. 3. The Scrutiny Committee then considered the documents produced by the petitioner and held that although the petitioner did belong to the “Chamber” caste, he could not prove that the permanent abode of the petitioner’s forefathers prior to 10.8.1950 was in the State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee has held that the documents indicated that they lived in the State of Bihar prior to 10.8.1950 and, therefore, the concessions meant for the “Chambhar” scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra were not available to the petitioner. 4. We have considered the documents placed on record by the : 3 : wp.1722.2011 petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. These include the Petitioner's School Leaving Certificate which indicates his caste as Hindu and his birth certificate. The caste certificate issued to the petitioner and his father mentioning “Chambhar” as their caste, the caste validity certificate of his brother, the licence issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation in his father’s name where the caste mentioned was `mending shoes’, the school leaving certificate of his father indicating that he was a `Harijan’ and several other documents were on record before the Committee. Considering all these documents and the vigilance cell report, the committee concluded that the petitioner did belong to the “Chambhar” caste. However, the documents produced by the petitioner to fortify his contention that his forefathers had migrated to an area which now falls within the State of Maharashtra prior to 10.8.1950 were not accepted by the Committee. The Committee has considered the insurance policy of the petitioner’s grandfather which was dated 19.1.1950. It has also taken into account the fact that the petitioner’s father was born in the State of Bihar on 21.5.1955 and, therefore, the family could not have been permanently resident in the area constituting the State of Maharashtra prior to 10.8.1950. The Committee concluded that the Petitioner’s grandfather and his grandfather’s brother were staying in Maharashtra prior to 1950 : 4 : wp.1722.2011 for the purposes of employment only and not as permanent residents. 5. We do not find that the Scrutiny Committee has committed any error in denying the caste validity certificate to the petitioner. As rightly held by the committee though the documents on record prove that the Petitioner does belong to the “Chambhar” scheduled caste he cannot avail of the benefits granted to the caste by the State of Maharashtra as he was a migrant. He was unable to prove that he or his forefathers were permanently residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to 1950. 6. The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Shweta Santalal Lal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 904 clearly indicates that a migrant belonging to a scheduled caste and not ordinarily resident as on 10.8.1950 in the area that now constitutes the State of Maharashtra would not be entitled to the benefits of reservation as a member of the Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra. He therefore would continue to get the benefits of reservation in the State of his origin. The Scrutiny Committee has drawn the correct conclusions and therefore its decision is confirmed. 7. We may note here that although several other issues have : 5 : wp.1722.2011 been raised in the petition, the learned advocate for the Petitioner urged before us to protect the petitioner's MBBS degree. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that such a relief cannot be considered by the High Court as it does not have the powers akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)