1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4430 OF 2005 (Rekha Ramkrishna Pinjarkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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 & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 26, 2009. Heard finally Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mirza, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel states that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has erroneously treated caste “Raj” as recorded in old documents as his profession and hence there is failure to apply mind. She further states that though affinity has been placed before the Police Vigilance Cell by pointing out traits and customs, because of the approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the affinity test has also not been properly applied. Lastly she contends that as there were old documents showing caste recorded as “Raj”, in view of the Division Bench judgment then holding the field in the case of Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 177, the petitioner did not lead any positive evidence to bring 2 affinity on record. She, therefore, seeks one opportunity for the said purpose. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, points out that the paternal uncle of the petitioner accepted that “Raj” as recorded was not the caste but a profession. He states that the old documents have been appreciated in the background of the statement and it was found that the petitioner and his ancestors were doing the masonry work, the word Raj signifying masonry work or in vernacular Gawandi, as appearing in their document. He invites our attention to the statement of the paternal uncle recorded by the Vigilance Cell to oppose the request made by the petitioner and states that the petition deserves to be dismissed. We have perused the statement recorded by the Police Vigilance Cell and we find that the paternal uncle of the petitioner has specifically stated that he belongs to “Raj” caste which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter he has stated that people of his community were engaged in masonry work which was known as “Rajkam” or Gawandi in parts of Marathwada and Varhad. We do not find anything in his statement to support the finding that he accepted that “Raj” as recorded in old documents did not disclose caste but referred only to profession. In this background, when the application of mind by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to old documents 3 and also to anthropological traits and customs placed on record is considered, we find that the approach is vitiated because of its earlier prejudice in the matter. However, as the petitioner has made a request before us to grant her opportunity to lead positive evidence to prove her affinity, we do not record any conclusive finding in this respect and leave the issue open for decision by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We accordingly quash and set aside the order dated 12.4.2005 and restore the matter back to the file of Caste Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead positive evidence on affinity test. As the matter is very old , Respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30th June 2010. The petitioner shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29th September 2009 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.