B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Heard Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 10.02.2003 passed by Respondent No. 1 – Scrutiny Committee, invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. This Court has issued notice in the matter on 02.05.2003 and protected his employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is born on 14.12.1959 and reaches the age of superannuation in the next year.

3. Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel, submits that entry 44 in the Presidential Scheduled Tribe Order envisages Thakur, Scheduled Tribe and hence distinction as higher caste Thakur and Thakur, Scheduled Tribe as used by Respondent No. 1 –Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order is unsustainable. He further contends that all documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate his caste claim are found genuine and have mentioned caste as Thakur. In view of these old documents which are of preindependence period, use of affinity test to discard those documents is not warranted. He draws support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee for