(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 1999 Miss. Seema d/o. Surendrapalsingh Parihar, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. Ramsingh Medical Hall, Shivaji Chowk, Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 4. The Director General of Police, Mumbai. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, District : Parbhani. 6. The Executive Magistrate, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 6. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th October 1999, passed by the respondent no. 2 / Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta", Vimukta Jati. 2. Mr. A.S. Bayas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the real brother of the petitioner has been held to be belonging to "Rajput Bhamta", which is notified as Vimukta Jati, the claim of the petitioner has been invalidated only on the ground that the petitioner had submitted the caste validity certificate of his younger brother and not elder brother. He further submits that during the pendency of the (3) petition, the claims of two real cousins of the petitioner, as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta", has been held to be valid by the Committee. 3. Mr. N.B. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that though the petitioner's father is an educated person, in the service record, he is not shown anywhere, that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta". It is, therefore, submitted that only in order to get the benefits, the petitioner has shown her caste as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta". 4. In normal circumstances, we would have remanded back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, since we find that the Scrutiny Committee has failed to take into consideration the relevant documents produced by the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that the remand would be empty formality and that the petitioner would be entitled to the declaration, that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta". 5. The real brother of the petitioner, namely, Vikramsingh Parihar, has been held to be belonging to "Rajput Bhamta", Vimukta Jati, by the same Committee. The validity granted in favour of said Vikramsingh is after following the procedure prescribed i.e. vigilance inquiry, etc. In these (4) circumstances, an anomalous situation, that one brother belongs to Vimukta Jati and the sister does not belong to Vimukta Jati, cannot be permitted to exist. The only ground, that the brother whose claim is validated is a younger brother, does not sound the common sense. It is a shear accident, that the brother is borne later than the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute, that Vikramsingh and the petitioner are children of the same father. 6. In that view of the matter, without going into other aspects of the matter, regarding validity granted in favour of cousins of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration, that she belongs to "Rajput Bhamta", Vimukta Jati. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Rajput Bhamta", which is notified as Vimukta Jati, and a validity certificate, in that respect, be issued to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/wp5793