1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4288/2005. ( Ku. Jyoti Narayan Nandanwar . ..vrs.. State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 28, 2009. 1. Heard finally by consent of Shri H.D. Dubey, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. 2. Though we are not very much satisfied with the attitude of the petitioner, in as much as she has only attempted to find out some loop holes into the application of mind by the Scrutiny Committee, we find that explanation given by the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell report has not been properly evaluated. The petitioner produced some old documents to show that caste was recorded as Halba. 3. Vigilance Cell authorities to find out the school records of her father, which reveal that caste was recorded as Koshti. Explanation of petitioner was that in said record the date of birth of father was recorded as 1.7.1943, while 2 his correct date of birth was 19.5.1944. She also produced the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Council to support this stand and pointed out that in birth certificate caste was recorded as Halbi. She therefore, requested the Scrutiny Committee to ignore the school record. This explanation has not been considered at all. 4. During hearing, our attention has been invited to the birth certificates of other brothers and sisters of father of petitioner and those certificates also reveal Halbi as caste. Vigilance Cell authorities recorded statement of mother of petitioner and on the basis of that statement the Scrutiny Committee has concluded that the test of affinity is not satisfied. Petitioner has not lead any positive evidence to bring on record the affinity. 5. The order of the scrutiny committee is dated 18.01.2005 when view of Division Bench as reported in the case of Ravi Prakash Parmar .vrs. State of Maharashtra (2004 [1] Mh.L.J. 177) was in force. The said view has been upset in judgment reported at 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250 (State of Maharashtra .vrs. Ravi Prakash Parmar and others), by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. In these circumstances, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to prove her caste claim by producing proper documents and for leading evidence about the affinity, and petitioner shall produce the school records of other brothers and sisters of her father, whose birth certificates are annexed with the Vigilance Cell report and 3 she is also free to bring on record the affinity. For that purpose, the impugned order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored back to its file. As the matter is old, the Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 30.09.2009 and shall abide by further directions in the matter. 7. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.