1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4343/2008 ( Suresh Dhondu Thakur -: versus :- The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification 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 : SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri N.R.Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The caste claim of petitioner as belonging to ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by the impugned order dated 20.12.2007. Shri Saboo, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that at that time, the question in relation to relevance of affinity test, in so far as Thakur Scheduled Tribe is concerned, was pending before the Full Bench of this Court and that judgment reported at 2009 [3] Mh.L.J. 995 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) came subsequently. He states that because of the confusion then prevailing, petitioner did not lead positive evidence to bring on record positive affinity. He further points out that the oldest document on record reveal that caste of Shri Avdhoot Punjaji, grand father of petitioner was recorded as ‘Thaker’ in 2 1932. He further states that some such documents are considered by the Scrutiny Committee and only because caste of one Kundlik s/o Avdhoot i.e. uncle of petitioner has been recorded as Maratha, the caste claim has been invalidated. He states that though in the year 1948, caste of Kundlik was recorded as Maratha in School leaving certificate, in the earlier certificate of 1944 his caste was shown as Thakur. In this background, he contends that the petitioner needs to be given an opportunity to explain the situation. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent Scrutiny Committee, is opposing the request. She points out that relevance of affinity test was well settled after the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Ravi Parmar 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250. She further argues that the petitioner did not lead any evidence and did not explain how the caste of Kundlik is shown as Maratha in 1948. According to her, as burden was upon the petitioner, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee does not call for any interference. The facts above clearly show that there are some documents even prior to 1948, where caste was recorded as either ‘Thakur’ or ‘Thaker’. In one document only it has been mentioned as Maratha, however, in document of earlier period in relation to very same person, the caste was recorded as Thakur. The fact that, relevance of affinity test was being examined by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court, cannot be disputed. In these circumstances, we are inclined to give 3 petitioner one opportunity to lead positive evidence to show his affinity and also to show how caste Maratha was recorded in 1948. For that purpose, the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 is quashed and set aside, the matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law, as early as possible and in any case by 31.07.2010. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 12.10.2009 and shall abide by its further direction in the matter. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.