1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A. No.1053/2011 in Writ Petition No.2717/2011 ( Gopal S/o Hajarilal Yadav ..Vs.. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, through its Member Secretary and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv. for applicant. Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. D.P. Thakre, AGP for respondent nos.2 ad 3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & M.N. GILANI, JJ . ORDER ( Per M.N. Gilani, J.) Date of Reserving the order : 19/10/2011. Date of Pronouncing the order : 21/10/2011. 1. This is an application filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.2717/2011 seeking review of the decision dated 11/10/2011 passed by this Court thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner – applicant. 2. First ground seeking review of the decision is the lack of opportunity to argue the entire case. According to the applicant, this Court dealt with all the issues involved in the 2 case although the arguments were advanced only about the issue of relationship of the petitioner with Kachri Hajari Shankar. According to him all the points involved in the case were not argued. We do not find any substance in this contention. When the matter was closed for judgment till its delivery, there was an opportunity for the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out to the Court that he wants to canvass more points and delivery of judgment may be deferred. On 11/10/2011 the matter was placed on board for pronouncement. Till the judgment was pronounced, it was open for the learned counsel to state that he wants to advance more arguments in the case. 3. The next contention of the applicant is that the this court has wrongly held that the school leaving certificate of Kachri Hajari showing her caste as ‘Thakur Kshatriya’ is that of sister of the petitioner. We clarify that there was no misreading of evidence by this Court. This is for the reason that in the vigilance report dated 4/10/2010 in para 7 it is mentioned that Smt. Kachri alias Kamlabai Shashikumar Yadav had taken primary education in Chaudhari Dindayalsingh Yadav Primary School, Kamptee. Her name is recorded in the register at serial no.156 and her caste is shown 3 as ‘Thakur Kshatriya’. It is further seen that in admission book of the same school there is an entry at serial no.156 and the caste of Kachri Hajari is mentioned as ‘Thakur Kshatriya’. According to the learned counsel for the applicant – petitioner, name of petitioner's father is mentioned as Hajari Shankar whereas his name is Hajari Dubar. The Vigilance Officer in para 7 has categorically mentioned that Smt. Kachri alias Kamlabai Shashikumar Yadav whose caste is shown as ‘Thakur Kshatriya’ is the elder sister of the petitioner – applicant. The Vigilance Officer recorded the statement of Smt. Kachri on 11/8/2010 wherein she stated that her name in school record is shown as Kachri Hajarilal Yadav. There is no denial to the fact that she had studied in Chaudhari Dindayalsingh Yadav Primary School, Kamptee. The report of the Vigilance Officer in para 7 that she is the sister of the petitioner was relied upon by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is pertinent to note that in such matter the proof of the facts cannot be expected beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, it was for the petitioner to say that her sister did not study in the said school during the relevant year. Apart from this the address in the school leaving certificate correspondence to the address of the family of the petitioner. Ramesh, brother of the petitioner, 4 states that Smt. Kachri, his sister, had studied in Municipal School, Kamptee. 4. The other contention is regarding the school entry of her second sister Asha Hajarilal Yadav. According to him, while admitting her to the school his younger brother had accompanied her and stated her caste as ‘Yadav’ without knowing the repercussions of the same. In para 9 of our judgment this ground has been considered. Surprisingly, in the review petition this ground has not been raised. 5. It is pertinent to note that the entry in school record of Smt. Kachri Hajarilal Yadav is not the only evidence on which the Committee placed reliance while invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner – applicant. There is voluminous evidence like statement of all the relations including that of Kachri which suggests that her both brothers namely Ramesh and the present petitioner have their surname Yadav. Her name in the school was also Yadav. She married to Shashikumar Yadav, which was the marriage within caste. Ramesh, brother of the petitioner, stated that all the marriages of the family members were within the caste. Even the petitioner consciously got his name changed from ‘Thakur’ to ‘Yadav’. 5 6. After considering all the pros and cons of the material placed on record as well as after perusal of the original file made available to us by the leaned counsel for the respondents the judgment dated 11/10/2011 was delivered. That being so, we find no substance in this review application and the same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.