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. 907 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2008 Ramchandra Marut Chandivalkar. .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. M.B. Gawade for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee which held that the petitioner’s caste certificate that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe is invalidated and, therefore, cancelled and confiscated. The petitioner’s caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee by the Additional Director General of Police as at the relevant time the petitioner was promoted to the post 2 of Deputy Director against the vacancy meant for scheduled tribe in the Finger Prints Department. The Caste Scrutiny Committee found that the documents submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Vigilance Cell which collected documents of relatives of the petitioner clearly indicate that the petitioner belongs to caste Koli which is recognised as OBC and not as Mahadeo Koli. Even the caste of the great grand father of the petitioner was verified and from the records of death and birth register it was found that the caste of the great grand father of the petitioner who died on 22.3.37 i.e. Bhiva Vithoba Koli was recorded as ’koli’. In so far as the affinity test is concerned, though the petitioner’s response was taken as based on literature available on the subject when he was asked to give information about trails, characteristics, customs, traditions in the inquiry conducted by the Scrutiny Committee it was found that the petitioner was not able to give information about certain characteristics and trails and, therefore, it came to the conclusion that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is invalid. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service record of the petitioner’s father records his caste as ’Mahadev Koli’ and that should have been taken into consideration. It is fairly conceded that the caste of the petitioner’s father recorded in his service book was a subsequent 3 entry made after obtaining caste certificate and it was never subjected to scrutiny. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances we find that the caste scrutiny committee has scrutinised the caste claim of the petitioner not only based on various documents of his paternal and maternal relatives but also by applying affinity test and rightly came to the conclusion that he does not belong to caste ’Mahadeo Koli’ which is recognised as scheduled tribe. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention cited the judgment in the case of Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1987 (3) Bom. C.R. 615. This decision does not help the petitioner in establishing that he belongs to caste ’Mahadev Koli’ as that was a case where in the service record of the petitioner though his caste was shown as ’Mahadev Koli’ but it was recorded as backward class and not belonging to scheduled tribe. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)