F. I. REBELLO, J. :- The petitioner was employed in the office of the respondent No.4 against a reserved post on the basis that he belongs to Thakur S.T. which is a notified scheduled tribe. The caste certificate was sent for verification to the relevant committee. The committee on considering the record held that the petitioner did not belong to Thakur S.T. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 6359 of 1999. After hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same by order dated 14-2-2000. We may refer to paragraph 6 of the order which reads as under:

"In view of the above, the Scrutiny Committee will look into the record afresh and decide as to whether the petitioner belongs to this particular Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the documents he has produced. It will be open to the petitioner to produce whatever additional material he wants to produce before the Committee, where after the Committee on hearing the petitioner will pass a speaking order. "

Subsequent to this order on remand, the petitioner pursuant to direction to appear for hearing on 6-5-2000, submitted his representation dated 6-5-2000. The petitioner also pointed out to the Committee that this Court had directed the committee to decide whether the petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. on the basis of the documents which the petitioner may produce. The petitioner produced several documents. The committee thereafter met and considered the documents given by the petitioner herein. The committee noted that from the documents it was not possible to hold as to whether the petitioner or his father belongs to Thakur S.T. and as such in the absence of any conclusive documentary evidence, the affinity test was required to be considered. The order of the Committee then notes that during the time of hearing, the candidate had furnished the information on the traits and characteristics as mentioned on Page No. 5 being points 1 to 8. The committee on considering the said material held that the information furnished by the candidate, does not show any affinity towards Thakur S.T. and in the light of that rejected the petitioners' caste claim as belonging to Thakur S.T. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present petition.

2. At the hearing of this Petition, on behalf of the petitioners, it is firstly submitted that the Committee did not take into consideration the direction No.5 of Para 13 in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 which reads as under:

"Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides, or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other person who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the cases or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc."

Secondly it is submitted that considering the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra and others vs. Ravi Prakash Babulals