K. K. T A TED, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The petitioners, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India approaches this Court, contending that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejecting their appeal against the order dated 29th May, 2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal suffers from an error of Jaw apparent on the face of the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has framed his challenges as under.

(a) The Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the important documents and material filed by them.

(b) The order of respondent No.2 i.e. Scrutiny Committee suffers from non application of mind and the decision has been given without following procedure.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Scrutiny Committee considered all the documents produced by the petitioners on record. Not only that, the Committee also heard the petitioners in person. The Committee considered the school leaving certificates of the petitioners wherein caste is mentioned as "Hindu Koli" and "Hin