B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 11/9/2014, thereby rejecting the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste. Petitioner's claim was rejected on the short ground that, since the Petitioner originally belonged to the State of Karnataka, he is not entitled to be treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.

3. The issue is no more res intergra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC 481 : 2004(5) ALL MR 152, has held that if a person migrates and both, the place from where he has migrated and the place where he is migrated, form part of the same State prior to re-organization but after re-organization the said areas belong to different States, then merely on the ground of migration, candidate cannot be denied the claim of social status.

4. Undisputedly, prior to re-organization, Taluka Chikkodi in Belgaum District to which the Petitioner originally belongs and Kolhapur which is the place where the Petitioner is migrated, both were the parts of