IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof for establishing a caste claim lies with the applicant, and the Caste Scrutiny Committee must rely on the evidence presented to it, without the obligation to conduct independent investigations beyond the submitted documentation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner who claims to be of 'Bhat' Community which comes under the Other Backward Class, category.

3. At the outset, the contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to the "Bhat" Other Backward Class. His father Ramprarsad Maniram Vyas was recorded as "Bhat" (Banjara Bhat) and he was also recorded so in his school record. The petitioner's great-grandfather namely Kalu Ghasi was also referred as "Bhat" in the entry at Mouza Bothbodan, Yavatmal, where they resided for some time. The petitioner's Aunt namely Kamala Maniram Vyas has also been recorded as "Bhat" in the school leaving certificate. Thus, there are consistent entries in the record, showing his forefather belongs to Bhat O.B.C.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner having passed his Higher Secondary Examination applied for a job and secured a job as a driver in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as an Other Backward Class candidate. Now, he is in need of a Caste Validity Certificate and therefore, his caste was referred for validation. The vigilance was conducted and the vigilance report is also supporting the case of the petitioner, showing that he belongs to the Bhat Community. After the vigilance report, the show cause notice was issued to him which was replied by him. He was wrongly recorded as 'Thakur' in the school leaving certificate issued by the Upper Primary School, which he had clarified in his reply to the notice issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. There are consistent entries showing that he as well as his forefather belong to the Bhat Community. The Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider the same and wrongly invalidated the claim. The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee deserves to be set aside.

5. The respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Bus Driver by the Corporation in the Reserved Category, subject to verification of his caste claim through the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner was terminated by the respondent/Corporation on 24/02/2018. During the inquiry conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner did not submit the true family tree and did not prove the affinity test. Due to which, the caste claim was invalidated. Thus, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is legal and proper one, and no interference is called for.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is erroneous and illegal. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had not considered the documents of pre-independence era which substantiated the claim of the petitioner. The vigilance report also supports the petitioner's claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents as well as the family tree. The family tree which was produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee by way of affidavit shows that one Ghasi Bhat was the ancestor of the petitioner having son namely Kalu, the said Kalu was having son Maniram alias Kanhaiyalal who is claimed to be the grandfather of the present petitioner. As per the family tree submitted before the Committee, the said Maniram was having two sons Ghanram, Ramesh and one daughter Kamla. The Caste Certificate issued to the present petitioner by SubDivisional Officer shows that he belongs to Bhat Community. The school leaving certificate of his father issued by "Zilla Parishad High School Mandavi also recorded his father as a Banjara (Bhat) Community.

7. The petitioner also placed reliance on the extract of the birth showing that the said Kalu has recorded the birth entry of his son namely Kanhaiyalal, who was born on 20/09/1943. The uncle of the present petitioner namely Maniram was also recorded to be a Bhat Community and