The finality and sanctity of claims of social status must be upheld to prevent chaos and malpractices resulting from allowing individuals to change their social status after it has been validated by a competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents-State of Maharashtra.

2. The petitioner is questioning the validity granted in his favour by the Scrutiny Committee on 11th February 2022 to the effect that petitioner belongs to “Maratha” caste.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to some subsequent events, the knowledge which was obtained by the petitioner on a later date, it was revealed to the petitioner that his real caste was not “Maratha” but “Kunbi”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the real sister of the petitioner was granted validity certificate by the Kolhapur Scrutiny Committee that she belongs to “Kunbi” caste, on 22nd September 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 26th August 2022, the petitioner had submitted a review application, requesting for recall of the order of validity dated 11th February 2020 on the ground that he had come across certain documents, which disclosed his real caste to be “Kunbi” and not “Maratha”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this review application was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by the order passed on 25th February 2022, without granting any hearing to the petitioner, which is illegal.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 25th February 2022 is illegal and that even the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 11th February 2020, granting validity to the caste certificate of the petitioner that he belongs to “Maratha” caste, is required to be quashed and set aside in order to enable the petitioner to make a fresh attempt to prove that he belongs to “Kunbi” caste and not to “Maratha” caste, owing to subsequent developments. He also submits that unless and until the order dated 11th February 2020 is quashed and set aside, it would not be possible for the Scrutiny Committee to allow petitioner’s review application dated 26th August 2022.

5. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the petition by submitting that the order dated 11th February 2020 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee on the own claim of the petitioner that he belongs to “Maratha” caste and by this order, the Scrutiny Committee has upheld the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to “Maratha” caste and, therefore, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to change his claim and say that he belongs to some different caste. The learned AGP also submits that the order dated 11th February 2020 cannot be found to be illegal as it is based upon the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner himself. She submits that all the documents submitted by the petitioner unequivocally show that his ancestors and forefathers belonged to caste “Maratha” and not the caste “Kunbi”. She invites our attention to the three documents specifically mentioned in the impugned order, which contain entries, going as far back as 1960 and 1970, all of which show that the forefathers of the petitioner were “Maratha” by caste. She also submits that only because some other entries have been discovered by the petitioner, which show that those other relatives are belonging to “Kunbi” caste, it would not lead to an inference that the ancestors of the petitioner, of whose documents were considered by the Scrutiny Committee while passing the impugned order, did not belong to caste “Maratha”.

6. Upon consideration of the reasons given in the impugned order and also the entries made in the documents relied upon by the petitioner himself, which have been duly considered and accepted as valid by the Scrutiny Committee, we find that there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and that there is great merit in the submissions of the learned AGP.

7. It may be true that there are some subsequent entries, which have been discovered by the petitioner s