ASHWINI ANIL CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.

(2.) A caste certificate was issued to the Petitioner on 25th March 2003 certifying that she belongs to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Second Respondent was moved for verification. The Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell submitted a report dated 16th April 2005. The claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 15th October 2005 which is impugned in these proceedings. The Scrutiny Committee has adverted to the fact that the Research Officer attached to the Vigilance Cell has formed an opinion that the traits and characteristics of the Petitioner did not match with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the Petitioner was consequently rejected on the ground that the affinity test was not fulfilled.

(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner it has been submitted that neither the report of the Research Officer, nor for that matter the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee discloses any application of mind on the question of affinity test. In order to consider this submission, it would be appropriate to extract the finding of the Scrutiny Committee on the affinity test in this case. The relevant finding in para 6(a) of the order is as follows :