JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant claims to be belonging to the carpenter caste. According to her, she hails from the Vidarbha area which is the border area of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Carpenters in the State of Madhya Pradesh are known as `Badhai', whereas in the State of Maharashtra, they are known as `Sutar'. Their occupation is said to be the same. According to appellant, in both the States, people belonging to the said caste are entitled to be considered as Other Backward Class (OBC).

3. It is not known when the family of the appellant migrated from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra. Inter alia on the premise that she belongs to OBC, she contested an election for a Member of Panchayat in Village Chincholi. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for the OBC category candidates. She was elected in the said category. An application, however, was filed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee by respondent No. 4 contending that she does not belong to the OBC category and, therefore, could not have been elected.

4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee relying on or on the basis of a purported circular letter issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 21.08.1996 refused to go into the said question holding that the appellant is not the daughter of Gulabrao Deulkar but was the daughter of Marotrao Chindhuji Shingnapure. Marotrao Chindhuji Shingnapure was a resident of Madhya Pradesh and as such she is not a resident of Maharashtra prior to 1967. It was, therefore, held:

"As per the directions given in Govt. Circular dated 21st August 1996, those candidates who are not residents of Maharashtra, the caste claim should not be verified. Therefore, Smt. Kusum Akotkar is not the resident of Maharashtra prior to 1967; her caste claim cannot be verified. Hence this decision. The candidate has submitted the documents in respect of her residence are doubtful. Therefore the Committee has decided not to verify her caste claim."

5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, she filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By an interim order dated 1.04.2005, a Division Bench of the said Court, directed:

"The petitioner has impugned the order dated 29-12-2004 passed by respondent No. 2 - Social Welfare Department, which held that as the petitioner was born on 21-7-1962 in Chhindwara District and being not a resident of Maharashtra prior to 1967, the caste claim could not be verified.

In the course of hearing, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 2, rather than refusing to examine the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that she was not the resident of Maharashtra prior to 1967, should scrutinize the caste claim of the petitioner and give its finding. In so far as the issue of the petitioner being a resident of Maharashtra prior to 1967 or not is concerned, the same can thereafter be considered by this Court.

We, therefore, direct the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 on 25-4-2005 at 11 a.m. and extend all possible co-operation to respondent No. 2 in getting her caste claim examined.

Respondent No. 2 to take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks.

The petition be listed before this Court for further orders on 20-6-2005."

6. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said direction, the Caste Scrutiny Committee considered the matter afresh. By an order dated 5.07.2005, it was held:

"The school certificate of Smt. Kusum Vithalrao Akotkar (Miss Kusum Gulabrao Deulkar) as well as the certificate of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jam, Dist. Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) shows that the caste of Shri Marotrao Chindhbaji Singnapure is Badhai (in Maharashtra, Sutar); hence the Committee maintains its decision dt. 29.12.2004 and further holds that the caste of Smt. Kusum Vithalrao Akotkar is Sutar."

7. The said order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was placed before the High Court, and by reason of the impugned judgment the writ petition was dismissed