IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4799 OF 2008 Mr.Parsu Vaiju Gunjagi & Anr. ..... Petitioners V/s. The Deputy Directotor and Chairman of Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Advocate i/by R.M.Momin, for the petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P., for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 06TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of Caste Certificate of Scheduled Tribes, Pune Division, Pune, dated 24-01-2007. By the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that initially in the School Record, the caste of the father of the petitioners was shown as “Koli” and subsequently, by a different ink the word “Mahadeo” is added, which is in different handwriting and ink. The Scrutiny Committee after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that caste of the father of the petitioners is “Koli” and not “Mahadeo Koli” and accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the 2 Scrutiny Committee and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj, is confirmed. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court which are annexed along with this petition, the Scrutiny Committee should not have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the addition to the writing in the school certificate i.e. Mahadeo Koli. He further submitted that such change was effected in various cases as the school authority had lost their original record and in the circumstances, the scrutiny committee should not have given more weightage to the fact that the word “Mahadeo” is written by separate ink and is written separately. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of this very petitioners. The petitioners had earlier came before this Court and the Division Bench by its order dated 27-06-2003, remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee while observing that appropriate person from the school authority be examined to find out whether the change in the original entry “Mahadeo” is proper or not. 3. It is not in dispute that the Scrutiny Committee at the time of passing the impugned order, had also summoned the Sarpanch of the Village as the school is run by the Panchayat. The Scrutiny Committee after 3 considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the evidence of two witnesses, which were examined by the Scrutiny committee after the High Court's order, came to the conclusion that the change in the original entry is found to be suspicious. The relevant observations of the Scrutiny Committee is read thus : “Again Writi Petition No.6356 of 2002 and 6357 of 2002 of Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai and in this matter as per decision given on 27 June 2003, and subsequent report asked from Hon'ble Deputy Director, Education, Kolhapur Division, this Office has received report from Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur vide their letter No.Kojip/shikshan/prath/astha-3/361/2003 dated 15.10.2003 and in the said report they have mentioned that in the column of caste and sub-caste in the General Register of Primary School at Village Chinchne, Taluka Chandgad, records made therein later on are wrong and for that purpose approval was not taken from Education Department. Therefore, in the column of caste and sub-caste that record is made twice and these are wrong as per the rule of Education Department like this clear opinion has been received in this office from Education Department. Therefore, upon referring to the report received Education Department it has been proved in this inquiry that rubbing and suspicious records in the General Register of Primary School and from that is proved that the petitioner “Koli Mahadev” is not belongs to “Scheduled Tribe”. 4. We have also gone through the Original School Register, which is produced by the School Authority and it is apparent that the word “Mahadeo” is added subsequently in an entirely different ink and the said 4 aspect has also been conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, but the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is only limited to the extent that such change is effected in connection with various students of the school. In our view, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to carry out such rigorous inquiry as to whether a particular persons belongs to a particular community, as the said subject is assigned to an independent authority. When the Scrutiny Committee after considering the entire material has found that so far as the entry in the School Register by which the petitioner's father name (caste) was shown as “Koli”, which entry is subsequently changed by adding another word “Mahadeo”, is not a bonafide change. In our view, it is not possible for us to take a different view of the matter especially when the appropriate authority has already given finding after appreciating the evidence on record. 5. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents pointed out that even if any change is to be effected in the school register, the Education Department is required to be informed. He further submitted that such change in the entry is required to be counter signed by the Education Officer, which has not been done in this case. He submitted that the change in the register is made by these petitioners to get advantage of a particular 5 caste certificate and it is a case of fraud. 6. After considering the material on record and after considering the reasoning given by the Scrutiny Committee, we do not find any substance in the petition and this Court would not like to interfere with the said finding of the Scrutiny Committee in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is rejected at the admission stage. Notice discharged. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )