1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5104 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5104 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5104 OF 2008 Gopinath Kisan Shinde . .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms. Helan Mandlik i/by Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mr. A.E. Deshmukh, Spl. Counsel for Respondent. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fourth challenge to the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee who has invalidated his caste certificate which shows that he belongs to caste ’Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. Initially the petitioner challenged the decision of the Committee dated 31.7.1995 by filing Writ Petition No. 9230 of 2004 which he withdrew with liberty to take such appropriate steps as are necessary in law. Thereafter the 2 petitioner again applied to the Committee for verification of his caste certificate. The Committee examined the caste certificate of the petitioner and found that he did not belong to the caste ’Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe by its order dated 31.8.2007. This was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 8719 of 2007. This Court after considering the case found it proper to remand it to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for reexamination of the caste from the stage of hearing him in response to the vigilance report as it was the petitioner’s case that he was not given an opportunity to contest the report of the Vigilance Cell. Thereafter the Committee has again examined the case afresh and came to the same finding. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste of the petitioner and his relatives in the school record is recorded as ’Hindu Thakar’ and there is no dispute over this fact and, therefore, by virtue of consistency in the documents produced before the Committee, the Committee has no option but to hold caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is valid and that the petitioner belonged to the caste ’Hindu Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reservation on the issue that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought not to have scrutinised the caste 3 certificate of the petitioner by applying the affinity test. We are of the view the Caste Scrutiny Committee was justified in applying the affinity test particularly when ’Thakar’ is used by persons of all castes and creed as their surname and in the affinity test the petitioner has miserably failed to establish his affinity towards the caste ’Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. 4. We have gone through the impugned order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has thoroughly examined the case of the petitioner after giving him fair opportunity and the petitioner was heard at least on five occasions. On 29.6.2007 when the petitioner was asked about the traits, characteristics, customs and traditions of ’Thakar’ Scheduled Tribe, the answers given by the petitioner clearly indicate that except for having his surname as ’Thakar’ he has not been able to establish any linkage with caste ’Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe as the petitioner was unaware about the traditional dance of their community. On the last occasion when he was examined he said that Dhole Lazim is the traditional dance of their community but he was unaware about the Pitrya-Pitri system, Avanji, Khoti systems and he has no knowledge about Bhagat and made an appeal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee that he is only educated upto primary level and that the Committee should protect his service taking into consideration the liability of his children 4 on him. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances we find that the committee did not commit any error or illegality in invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner which was issued to him by the competent authority that the petitioner belonged to caste ’Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition. Petition is dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)