1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2006 (Gangadhar Pochanna Shinde vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committe & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 27, 2009. Heard Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mirza, learned AGP for respondent No.2 and Shri Malokar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel has pointed out that the Vigilance Cell recorded a finding that the petitioner belong to Mannewar Harijan caste. He states that this finding, therefore, shows that the petitioner was found to be down trodden and in spite of this, the Research Officer concluded that he was not belonging to Mannewar – Scheduled Tribe. He has thereafter invited our attention to order of the Scrutiny Committee to show that the Scrutiny Committee has relied upon some documents where caste was recorded as Telgu Mannewar, though there is no such caste and has ultimately found that the petitioner does not belong to Mannewar – Scheduled Tribe. The affinity has been mechanically applied. 2 The learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee, learned AGP and Shri Malokar, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents are supporting the impugned order. They invite our attention to the observations and findings as recorded therein. The perusal of impugned order reveals that most of it is consideration of earlier law/ precedence and only because of Vigilance Cell or then a document where caste of the petitioner was found to be recorded as Telgu – Mannewar, caste claim has been invalidated. The application of affinity test is also perfunctory because only conclusion has been mentioned at the end of para 7 (a). Had Scrutiny Committee found that Mannewar – Harijan or Telgu Mannewar were the castes in existence and the petitioner, therefore, did not belong to Mannewar – Scheduled Tribe, the order of Scrutiny Committee could have been understood. As we find that the Scrutiny Committee has not appropriately evaluated the documents placed before it and also the say given by the petitioner, we are not in a position to sustain the order. The said order dated 26.6.2006 is, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter has to be remanded to Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to lead evidence about the affinity. This Court has because of change in law reflected in the judgment of 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar, reported at 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250, granted such an opportunity to some of the candidates. We find this matter also fit for granting such an opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 26.06.2006 is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of Respondent No.1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31st May 2010. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 30th September 2009 and shall abide by its orders in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.