1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5162 OF 2006 Shaharunnisa Din Mohammad .vs. Z.P., Nagpur through its Chief Executive Officer & another. ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. S.K. Majid, Advocate for respondent no.1, Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, A.G.P. for respondent no. 2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 16, 2008. The petitioner by this petition challenges the validity of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Julaha' caste (Other Backward Class) is not valid. The only document on which the petitioner was relying was the School Leaving Certificate issued in favour of her father by Headmaster of Jan Jagruti Primary School, Nagpur. The complaint of the petitioner is that the caste claim has been rejected without calling for report from Vigilance Cell. The perusal of that School Leaving Certificate shows that the father of the petitioner was in that school from 1939 to 1944. It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the respondents tried to make enquiry to verify the veracity of the 2 School Leaving Certificate. They found that the School is no more in existence and that Education Officer of the Zilla Parishad informed the Scrutiny Committee that the school where the petitioner's father was supposed to be from 1939 to 1944 existed between the period from 1.4.1968 to 31.3.1970. This document from the Education Officer completely belies the theory that the father of the petitioner was in that Primary School in the years 1939-1944. Though the petitioner has filed rejoinder after this reply was filed, the petitioner has stated nothing about the document produced by the respondent, i.e. the letter from the Education Department. There is no document placed on record by the petitioner to show that the School where the petitioner's father is supposed to have taken education from 1939-44 was in existence during that period. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, it is obvious from the record that the document on the basis of which the petitioner was making a claim was not a genuine document. We are not inclined to interfere in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.