Shivaji Shankar Baikar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6221 Bom

                                                                     (21) WP 9321-16.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 9321 OF 2016
       Shivaji Shankar Baikar                                    ...Petitioner
                  versus
       State of Maharashtra & Others.                            ...Respondents

                                           ............

       Mr. C.K. Bhangoji, for the Petitioner.
       Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4.
                                    ............

                                                         CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & 
                                                                       M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2017

P.C. :

The petitioner challenges the order of respondent

no.2 Scrutiny Committee whereby claim of the petitioner that he

belongs to Mahadeo Koli which is notified as Schedule Tribes is

rejected. We have perused the impugned order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee.

2. The Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri

Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra (1994 (6) SCC 241) has held

(21) WP 9321-16.doc

that while considering a claim of candidate due weightage will

have to be given to the pre-constitutional document. It has been

held that, may be with passage of time, the candidates may not

be aware of the traits of particular tribe and as such they failed

in affinity test. It has further been held that though due

weightage will have to be given to the pre-constitutional

document, the said tests will also be relevant in the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the present case not a single pre-

constitutional document is available with the petitioner showing

that the petitioner belongs to Mahadev Koli. As a matter of fact

the earliest document of the petitioner's father shows that his

caste to be Hindu Mahadev Koli. No doubt that the petitioner

relies on one document i.e. school leaving record of petitioner's

father which shows his caste to be Mahadev Koli, however the

said document is of the year 1969 i.e. much after the order of

1950 came into effect. The documents which were brought on

record shows that their caste is Hindu Koli.

3. In view of the non availability of the pre-

(21) WP 9321-16.doc

constitutional document, the affinity test would play vital role.

However the petitioner has also failed the affinity test, as is

evident from the Vigilance Cell report. We see nothing wrong in

the view taken by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petition is

rejected.

   (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                             ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)