Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee set up under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short the “Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001”) to verify the caste certificate.

3. The order passed on 14.05.2012, invalidates the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. It is common ground that the petitioner applied on the strength of a caste certificate issued on 29.01.1993 (Annexure 'A') for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the respondent nos. 3 and 4 institution.

5. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Shikshan Sevak which is the nomenclature carried by the said post prior an amendment to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977. The appointment order was issued on 24.11.2008, for a period of three years.

6. Since the appointment was against a reserved seat, the caste certificate was forwarded to the competent Scrutiny Committee.

7. The first respondent committee has taken on record as many as 34 documents, which the petitioner produced, so as to discharge the burden cast by Section 8 of the Act 23 of 2001.

8. The petitioner heavily relied upon a pre-constitutional document as also a certificate of validity issued to her paternal uncle by the same Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee in invalidating the claim has held, firstly that the document which was produced in which the entry is Thakur, that document does not say whether Thakur means Thakur Scheduled Tribe or Thakur Simplicitor as a surname. As far as, the certificate of validity is concerned the finding is that, though, such certificate of validity may be tendered as proof of the claim and to discharge the burden under Section 8, still the candidate must establish and prove further that the certificate of validity issued to close relative from the paternal side was after a adjudication on merits. The committee feels and we are sorry to say none of these committees are exceptions that mere production of certificate of validity issued to close relative on paternal side is not enough. In some cases, the files are called and the original files reveal that the certificate of validity is issued under the signature of the Scrutiny Committee Members. However, there is no detailed order according to the committee available in the file. Such a opinion is expressed, sometimes after a decade or more of the certificate of validity is issued. Though no finding is rendered on the competence of the Scrutiny Committee to issue the certificate of validity yet, or not able to trace a reasoned order, the conclusion invariably reached is there is no adjudication on merits. For all this, the certificate holder or the claimant relative relying on it is blamed. This suggests that a certificate of validity can be easily procured and no effort is taken in issuing it by the committee. If this is how the committees, proceed, according to the petitioner's counsel, then, it is not the petitioner who is at fault.

9. The argument of Mr. Bayas before us is that the petitioner has no control over the proceedings. In such cases, if the claims are decided on perusal of the entire record and if there is no doubt entertained by the Scrutiny Committee nor the contents of the documents are ever questioned, then, straight away a certificate of validity is issued. The documents are carefully perused and their contents scrutinized. That does not mean that there is no adjudication on merits. If the applicant is obliged to discharge the burden under Section 8, then, how that burden is discharged in an individual case and how the committee has satisfied itself