R. M. BORDE, J.:- Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court raising challenge to the order dated 30th December, 2005, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to "Koli Malhar", a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is a student and it has been informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that she has secured admission to medical course as against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe category candidate. The tribe claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent No. 2- Committee for verification. It appears that as a part of the prescribed procedure, vigilance cell inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted to the Committee. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Committee. The petitioner submitted number of documents before the Committee. On consideration of the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner before the Committee as well as after holding the personal interview of the petitioner, respondent No. 2- Committee arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish her claim and as such by order dated 30-12-2005, invalidated the tribe certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

4. We have perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has submitted copies of school record in the form of school leaving certificate, school admission extract pertaining to herself as well as her sisters Yogita and Jayashree and brother Madhukar. The petitioner has also produced on record the tribe certificates issued in favour of her brother and sisters as well as her father. The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the school admission extract pertaining to her father wherein his caste is recorded as, "Koli". There are other documents placed on record before the Committee, which are mentioned in para 18 of the order at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Those are the extracts of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner wherein their caste is recorded as "Koli". The Committee has turned down the, claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the documents placed on record, in order to support her claim, are of recent origin. There is an entry in the school record of petitioner's father to the effect that he belongs to "Koli" caste. The Committee was of the opinion that there is no basic document placed on record to arrive at a finding as regards tribe claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe. The Committee also found that the petitioner has failed to prove her affinity and ethnic linkage towards "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe.

5. We do not find that the Committee has committed any error in appreciating the evidence placed on record by the petitioner before the Committee. There does not appear any error on the face of the record committed by the Scrutiny Committee in arriving at a finding which needs interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the vigilance enquiry is vitiated on the ground that as per the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development. Thane and others, reported in 1997 (5) SCC 437. one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer was not accompanying Vigilance Officer during the conduct of the Vigilance Cell enquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the matter is required to be reconsidered in view of the deficiencies in conduct of the Vigilance Cell enquiry. It is further contended that the impugned order passed by the Committee which, in turn, relied upon the findings of the Vigilance Cell enquiry, is vitiated because of the fact that the said enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell was not conducted in the man