WP No.2711/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2711 of 2008 Sau.Archana Jitendra Pawar ] R/o Varkhede (BK), ]PETITIONER. Tq.Chalisgaon,Dist.Jalgaon.] VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary, ]RESPONDENTS. Rural Development Deptt. ] Mantralaya,Mumbai & others.] ----- Mr.D.B.Thoke-Patil,Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 7. Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate, for Rsp.No.2. Mr.B.S.Mundhe, Advocate, for respondents No.5 & 6. ----- Coram : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. Date : 19th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : [ Per – Naresh H. Patil, J. ] Heard. 2 Petitioner’s caste claim as “Rajput Bhamta” a Vimukta Jati was invalidated by Caste Scrutiny Committee, which decision has been challenged in this petition. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the WP No.2711/2008 - 2 - petitioner submits that in the proceedings pending before Additional Commissioner, Nashik, vigilance cell report was called by Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The vigilance cell report was submitted. The said report was in favour of petitioner. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not taken into consideration the said vigilance cell report. In the earlier proceedings of Writ Petition No.7787 of 2006 filed by petitioner, the respondent No.7 Tahasildar filed his affidavit in reply and made averments as reflected in para No.3 of the petition. Those averments read thus: “8 I say and submit that, the Register is available in the Tahasil Office for issuing the Caste Certificates and the entries of caste certificates issued are taken in the said Register. I say that, in the year 1983-84 as per original register on 30.11.1983 only one caste certificate was issued in favour of Pralhad Pira Pagare at Sr.No. 5544, therefore the said certificate the petitioner is not issued from Tahsil Office as per the available Register maintained by this Office regarding issuing caste certificate. 9 I say and submit that, the petitioner No.1 Archana Pawar filed an application on 3.2.2007 demanding files in respect of caste certificate which was issued from the Tahsil Office in the year 1983-84. I say that, thereafter, the office of the deponent verified all the record of the year WP No.2711/2008 - 3 - 1983-84, but the original files are not found in the record room, therefore the deponent has not supplied the original record to the petitioner No.1.” 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these observations cannot be taken into consideration against the petitioner as signature of the then Tahasildar ought to have been verified by appropriate agency, which has not been done so. 5 The learned counsel Shri.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, submits that this is a case where in the earlier proceedings of Writ Petition No.7787 of 2006 the Tahasildar himself filed a reply stating that the caste certificate, based on which the petitioner applied for verification of his caste claim, was not issued by the said Tahasil office. The petitioner’s school record shows that the petitioner belongs to “Hindu Rajput” caste which is not “Rajput Bhamta” a Vimukta Jati. The record does not support the case of the petitioner. The vigilance cell report, which was called for in the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, was considered by the Scrutiny Committee. WP No.2711/2008 - 4 - 6 We have considered the submissions advanced and gone through the record placed before us. The contentions raised by Tahasildar in the affidavit in reply are very clear that the caste certificate, which was verified by the Scrutiny Committee, was not issued by their Tahasil office. There is no corresponding entry about issuing of such caste certificate in favour of the petitioner in the register maintained by Tahasil office. According to Tahasildar, the original files are not traceable and, therefore, the file pertaining to petitioner was not produced. 7 The school record prima facie discloses that the petitioner belongs to “Hindu Rajput” caste and not the “Rajput Bhamta” a Vimukta Jati. 8 In the peculiar facts of the case, we do not find any serious error in the view adopted by Scrutiny Committee in not accepting the vigilance cell report which was obtained earlier in the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner. The facts of the case and the documentary evidence led by the petitioner do not inspire confidence for conferring upon him the caste status as “Rajput Bhamta” a Vimukta Jati. 9 In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution WP No.2711/2008 - 5 - of India, we do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for causing interference in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. There is no merit in the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 10 Petition is dismissed. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp2711.08