The court emphasized the importance of adhering to settled legal principles and the principles of appreciating the evidence in determining the validity of tribe certificates.

JUDGMENT

S. G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Learned aGP waives service of notice for respondents Nos.1 and 2.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by the consent of the parties heard finally.

3. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 Committee rejecting their tribe validity claim and a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue tribe validity certificate of "Mannervarlu" Scheduled Tribe in their favour.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that on 13.05.2008, the father of petitioner No.1 was granted the validity certificate. Their two uncles were also granted the caste validity certificates in 2008-09. In 2003-04, two real cousin uncles of the petitioners had also been granted the validity certificates. at least 25 validity certificates were issued to the petitioners' families; still, respondent No.2 Committee has invalidated the petitioners' claim.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued that the powers to review have not been invested with the Scrutiny Committee to review its own order. However, it has undoubtedly, the powers to open the case only to the limited issue if the fraud has been played by the claimant while obtaining the caste/tribe validity. In the case at hand, respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has applied a pick and choose policy and referred only 14 validity certificates, including one of Pravin Ramlu Totawar, who is not in close relation with the family of the petitioners. The Committee has willfully omitted a reference to more than ten persons in the petitioners' families who have been granted validity certificates. The petitioners replied to the vigilance report extensively.

6. The petitioners are suffering in their respective career and education opportunities due to the non-granting of the validity certificates. Petitioner No.3 has been precluded from participating in the admission process after her 12th standard. Petitioner No.2 has to pay the entire tuition fee for B.Ed. Course. Petitioner No.1 could not participate in the selection process for the post of Surveyor though applied, owing to the non-issuance of degree certificate of B. Tech. (Civil). Hence, this petition.

7. To bolster the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable apex Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & ors., (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54 and the decisions rendered by this Court in apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Sadar, Nagpur & Ors., 2010 (6) aIR BOM R 21 and in the case of anil s/o Shivram Bandawar Vs. The District Caste Certificate Verification Committee & anr. in Writ Petition No.8107 of 2019, dated 26.7.2021. He has vehemently argued that the petitioners have a good case and the material placed before the Scrutiny Committee is sufficient to issue them validity certificates.

8. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the Committee failed in not considering the validity certificate in the wake of as many as 25 validity certificates being granted to the family members by the earlier Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has unfoundedly made the accusations against the petitioners that the validity holders in the petitioners' family had furnished false information while obtaining validity certificates without substantiating the said accusations. There is absolutely no discussion on playing fraud and suppressing the facts while obtaining the certificates by the petitioners' relatives. The findings of respondent No.2 are vague. It has not discussed how the case of Sheshrao Mopale is applicable. The Committee has not addressed the fraud committed by the validity holders or how they suppressed the facts, fabricated the documents, and misled the Scrutiny Committee.

9. It is s