Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

The Petitioner has sought to challenge an order of the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 10 July 2012 by which the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner has been invalidated. The Petitioner was initially granted a caste certificate in a format prescribed for migrants which was referred to a Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee returned the caste certificate by a communication dated 14 September 2007. In a petition filed before this Court (Writ Petition 2166 of 2008)liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach the Executive Magistrate afresh for the grant of a caste certificate. The Petitioner thereupon approached the Additional District Deputy Collector, Andheri on 17 July 2008 and the competent authority granted a caste certificate in the prescribed form to the Petitioner on 27 October 2008. The caste certificate was forwarded to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Police Inspector attached to the vigilance cell submitted an enquiry report stating that the Petitioner and her family had migrated to the State of Maharashtra in 1972. An order was passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 19 May 2011 invalidating the caste certificate. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was challenged in writ proceedings before this Court. By an order dated 4 January 2012 the Division Bench noted the grievance of the Petitioner that the order of the Scrutiny Committee had not taken note of a circular dated 10 July 2008 issued by the State Government in relation to the residents of 865 villages near the Maharashtra Karnataka boarder. It was the contention of the Petitioner that persons who hail from those 865 villages cannot be regarded as migrants into the State of Maharashtra. Since the government circular dated 10 July 2008 was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Committee without any expression of opinion on merits and remanded the proceedings back to the Committee for fresh consideration. Upon remand, the Scrutiny Committee has passed its impugned order dated 10 July 2012 invalidating the claim of the Petitioner. The Committee has noted that the father of the Petitioner had migrated to the State of Maharashtra from the State of Karnataka in 1972 together with his family as found in the report of the vigilance cell. This was also admitted in the statement of the Petitioner's father. The Scrutiny Committee observed that insofar as scheduled castes are concerned, the presidential order dated 10 August 1950 is of relevance and the government circular dated 10 July 2008 had no relevance to the issue of reservations.

2. The view which has been taken by the Scrutiny Committee is consistent with the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130). The judgment of the Constitution Bench expressly lays down that while there is no inhibition on a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrating from one State to another, as a migrant he would not carry the rights and privileges conferred upon the caste in the original State or a specified area. The Supreme Court observed as follows:

“But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights and privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. ….. The expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. ….... Treating the determination under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the country