1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7835 OF 2006 Ganesh S/o Shankar Irmale, Age : 23 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Jehangir Moha, Tq. Dharoor, Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Beed. 4. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 5. The Tahsildar, Kaij, Dist. Beed. .. .. Respondents 2 Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl. G.P. for Respondents No. 1 & 5. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri H. K. Mundhe, Advocate for the Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED : 10.02.2010 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 26.02.2010 JUDGMENT [ PER N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard both the parties with consent finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by respondent No. 2/the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as "Mahadev Koli" (Sch. Tribe) and further prays to issue provisional appointment order as Shikshan 3 Sevak in a school under the control of respondents No. 3 and 4 on following facts and grounds amongst others. 4. The petitioner came to be selected as Shikshan Sevak for his appointment to the said post from reserved category of Scheduled Tribe which he belongs to. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed in routine course referred his case for verification of tribe claim to respondent No. 2/Committee on or about 29.11.2004. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 2/Committee and submitted several documents in support of his tribe claim alleged by him belonging to "Mahadev Koli" (Scheduled Tribe). He also received inquiry report and show cause notice to which he replied. 5. The petitioner also submitted school leaving certificates and extract of school registers of his blood relatives, besides his own school certificate and record extract of service book of his uncle Navnath Muktaji Irmale and his admission register and also certificate of validity of paternal cousin brothers namely Abhiman Raosaheb Mande and Vishwanath Raosaheb Kombade and genealogical tree and affidavit. 4 6. The petitioner with leave, amended his petition suitably and placed reliance on verified tribe claim certificate dated 23.12.2008 of his paternal cousin by name Hanumant Vishwambhar Irmale, supported with an affidavit. The petitioner mainly attacked on the adverse finding recorded against him by the respondent No. 2/Committee that he failed to prove his affinity and his linkage towards "Mahadev Koli" Scheduled Tribe. 7. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Committee reply on affidavit dated 05.11.2009 came to be filed in support of impugned order, reiterating that the impugned entry of "Ma Ko" is in different hand writing and ink, when original admission register of petitioner's father Shankar Muktaji Irmale was examined in the Court and further pointed out that petitioner's father in his statement admitted that he has no real uncle. There is variation in the genealogy given earlier by the petitioner and his father before the respondent No. 2/Committee and at the time of amendment application. Muktaji's father is shown "Raoji" at one place, whereas in the statement of Shankar S/o Muktaji Irmale, it is by name "Shankar" at another place. The relationship with the petitioner is also denied by Hanmant Vishwambhar Irmale and 5 further stated that petitioner having failed to prove his affinity and linkage towards "Mahadev Koli" Scheduled Tribe, would not be justified to raise alleged tribe claim. 8. Perused the original school admission register and the observations made by the respondent No. 2/Committee in the impugned order referring to all evidence produced before it. It is true that the petitioner did not deny or offer any explanation about impugned entry in different ink and hand writing, as it is evident in order to reap-benefit out of it. We are also satisfied on the point that there is material variation in the genealogy stated, which is primarily considered for understanding and accepting the relationship of those whose claims have been favourably considered by the respondent No. 2/Committee, where petitioner has failed. 9. In the matter of caste verification the scope of judicial review is limited, when it is seen that respondent No. 2/Committee has offered all opportunity to the petitioner and followed due procedure in such inquiry. The caste claim verification is a scrutiny of genuine claim on the basis of proof to 6 the satisfaction of the Committee concerned, from all such evidence and the sources which are free from doubt and stand to the test of its credibility and veracity. As such, no case is made out by the petitioner for interference in the impugned order. The petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 2010