(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11192 OF 2010 Nilofar d/o. Bashir Ansari. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary in the Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai - 32, and 5 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioner is raising challenge to the decision (2) rendered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, validating the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent no.6, of her belonging to "Teli" caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. 2. The petitioner had raised objection while determination of the status claim of the respondent no.6 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and on consideration of the objection raised by the petitioner, as well as, on consideration of material placed by the respondent no.6 on record, the Scrutiny Committee has validated the caste claim of respondent no.6. In order to substantiate her claim, the respondent no.6 has placed reliance on her school record, wherein her caste is recorded as "Teli". Apart from that, the school record of her father, namely, Suresh Bhila Chaudhary, which is of the year 1956, also records an entry in respect of his caste as "Teli". The report of the Vigilance Cell is also in favour of respondent no.6, wherein it has been specifically recorded that on local inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the claim raised by the respondent no.6 was found to be proper. On considering all these aspects, the Scrutiny Committee has validated the caste claim of respondent no.6 and the decision rendered in that behalf cannot be faulted. 3. We do not see any perversity in the order passed by (3) the Scrutiny Committee while validating the caste claim of respondent no.6. In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11192