JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent - State. At the joint request, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the respondent no. 2 – Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, in a proceeding under section 7, refuting her claim as belonging to Hindu Mahar scheduled caste.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Bedre for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Mahar community. Her native is from Rahuri taluka, district - Ahmednagar. Though there was ample material collected by the vigilance cell and available with the scrutiny committee to be looked into the committee has proceeded with a prejudiced mind. It has clearly ignored the favourable entries which were ample in number but readily accepted some record which was not even enough to entertain a doubt about petitioner’s family having been converted to Christianity. The church had clearly informed the vigilance cell that none of the family members was ever baptized and none was the member of the church in the vicinity of their village. Besides there was old school record pointing out that the petitioner’s paternal ancestors have been Mahar. There was sufficient and cogent material before the scrutiny committee even before it had entertained some doubt about such religious conversion, to emphatically reach such a conclusion. The committee illegally referred to observations of this Court in writ petition no. 5105 of 2013 dated 10-09-2013 in the matter of Santosh Shirsat V. Maharashtra State and others where there was material to draw inference that the family had converted to Christianity. Such is not the case here except the fact that during the home visit the vigilance officer had seen the cross and a bust of Jesus Christ inside the house. There was no material before the scrutiny committee to reach the conclusion it has. The observations are clearly perverse, arbitrary and deprive the petitioner a social status and the benefits derivable therefrom.

5. Per contra, the learned AGP supported the inference drawn by the scrutiny committee. She submitted that availability of the evidence gathered during the vigilance cell was decisive. In the petitioner’s house a cross was painted on the entrance. There was a bust of Jesus Christ. Burials have taken place like those are followed in Christian community. Even names of some of the family members are typical of that community. Though the petitioner’s paternal aunt Jai and Maribai are stated to be belonging to Mahar community in their school record, the names do not tally. Her grandfather is Keru Kondiba Kharat whereas names of these two women of whom school record was collected are Jaibai Mohan Kharat and Maribai Mohan Kharat.

The learned AGP would further submit that even the revenue record is not correct and reliable though the photographs of petitioner’s marriage prima facie show performance of Hindu rituals, those photographs were not produced before the scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee, therefore, was right in discarding that evidence. The decision has been reached by plausible appreciation of the material and this Court cannot sit in appeal.

6. We have carefully considered and appreciated the rival submissions and perused the papers.

7. At the outset, it is necessary to note that though the petitioner is heavily relying upon the school record of two women Jaibai Mohan Kharat and Maribai Mohan Kharat and though the first name of her paternal aunts tally, her grandfather’s name is Keru Kondiba Kharat whereas the school record of Jaibai Mohan Kharat and