K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard finally.

2) Since the issue involved in these writ petition is identical, therefore, these petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

3) The petitioners claim to be `Thakur’ (scheduled tribe). Their caste certificates issued by the competent authorities on 7.6.2001 were invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 4.9.2009 and dated 24.9.2009 respectively and the same is assailed in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4) The petitioner – Dattu has studied initially up to Xth Std. and during the course of his employment, he has completed B.A.B.Ed. course. He joined as primary teacher on 15.3.1994 and was promoted time to time. The petitioner had a certificate dated 1.7.1981 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Yawal, certifying that the petitioner is scheduled tribe `Thakur’. The said certificate was subjected by the Block Development Officer for its validation on 22nd October, 2003. However, since the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not decide it in time, the petitioner with his son and daughter had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1270/2006 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same with directions to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within four months from 17.4.2006 in accordance with law.

5) The petitioners – Amol s/o Dattu Thakur and Kum.Pratibha d/o Dattu Thakur, while they were studying in XIth Std., their caste certificates were forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation purpose.

6) Petitioner – Amol and Kum.Pratibha were born on 10.01.1989 and 23.4.1986 respectively and they received the Caste Certificates from the Competent Authority on 7.6.2001.

7) Vigilance Cell report was called, which was verified by the petitioner Dattu. Since simultaneously the scrutiny and inquiry in respect of the petitioners – Amol and Kum.Prathibha was conducted on 23rd January, 2009, the Vigilance Officer had submitted the report on 3rd of April, 2008.

8) Mr.Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate the documents in proper perspective. The Order of the Committee is against the law, justice and equity. The Committee has erred in appreciating the School Leaving Certificate of Namdeo Bandu Thakur of 1928, who, is father of the petitioner – Dattu and grandfather of petitioners – Amol and Kum.Pratibha, which disclose that he belonged to Thakur caste.

9) The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995 (Full Bench) and also to the Judgment in the matter of Pandurang Rangnath Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 806.

10) We have verified the original record in respect of the petitioners produced by Shri Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee.

11) We have perused the Judgments cited (supra). In the Full Bench Judgment, it is observed as under :

“The nature of the inquiry in regard to the claim of a candidate to belong to a Scheduled Tribe is not merely to be confined to an examination of the birth and the school records and of documentary evidence but would involve an investigation of the affinity of the candidate with a tribe, or as the case may be, tribal community. Thus, the process of verification of caste claims which came to be governed by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil involved an inquiry not merely into the documentary materials on the basis of which the caste claim is founded but equally a verification of the claim with reference to the affinity of the candidate with a designated Scheduled Tribe. The inquiry would comprehend within its purview anthropological and ethnological traits. The Committee would be entitled to inquire into the question as to whether the applicant