JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---In this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority. 2.The petitioner sought admission to Medical Collage in Marathwada Region. He applied for a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner was admitted as he was listed at Sr. No 1 in the list of successful candidates. The application of the petitioner was, however, forwarded for verification of his claim by the Dean, Medical Collage, Aurangabad, to the Committee appointed by the State Government, which is known as "Caste Verification Committee". The petitioner was interviewed with his father. 3.The petitioner relied on certain documents in the form of School Leaving Certificate dated 17-8-1984 , service book of his father, extract of birth register of his father showing the date of birth with his caste was "Adivasi Thakur", certificate dated 17-7-1982 issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Biloli, the caste certificate issued by Executive Magistrate, Biloli, dated 17-7-1982 in favour of the petitioner's brother and school leaving certificate and college leaving certificate of the petitioner dated 17-8-1984. 4.In addition to this, the petitioner also produced certificate in favour of his relationship with his father. 5.On going through the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, rejected the petitioner's claim. In this context, the Committee was of the view that the document relied on by the petitioner is not a conclusive proof to establish his claim. 6.The appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee being Appeal No. 26 of 1984 but the same was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 23-4-1991 7.Shri. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that from amongst the several documents produced by the petitioner, the document namely, extract from birth register of the petitioner's father showing his caste as "Adivasi Thakur" is a conclusive proof in support of the petitioner's claim and therefore, the impugned order suffers from gross error of law. 8.Shri Chillarge, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents State authorities, on the other hand submits that the entry in the birth extract of the petitioner's father, at the most, furnish a great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste "Adivasi Thakur" but it cannot be regarded as the conclusive proof. 8.Shri Chillarge, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents State authorities, on the other hand submits that the entry in the birth extract of the petitioner's father, at the most, furnish a great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste "Adivasi Thakur" but it cannot be regarded as the conclusive proof. In this regard, he relies on the decision in case of (Vandana Narayan Sonkusare v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1998(4) Bom.C.R. 432 : 1998(2) M.L.J. 12. 9.To deal with the question of identification of the petitioner's social status, it is relevant to keep in view the obvious purpose of constitutional provision confirming the certain benefits of compensatory discrimination and /or protective discrimination. One of the most important principles embodied in our Constitution is a commitment to bring about social economic regeneration of the timing millions who stepped in poverty, ignorance and social backwardness. 10.In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President has made Constitution Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 listing scheduled tribes in various States. Once promulgated the list can be altered or varied only by the Act of Parliament. Accordingly, under the Constitution, the President and Parliament are given explicit and broad powers to include scheduled tribes and the courts have refused to review the appropriateness of the criteria in determining these groups. For instance in (Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar)2 case A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2306 the Supreme Court has observed: "It is the constitutional mandate that the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities specified by the President, after consultation with the Governor, in the public notification, will be Scheduled Tribes, subject to the law made by the Parliament alone, which may, by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified by the President. Thereafter, it can not be varied except by Parliament. The specification is for the purpose of the Constitution. The Court has no power to declare synonymous as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the order or include in or substitute any caste/ tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution Scheduled Tribes' define under Article 366 (25) as substituted under the Act, and the II Schedule thereunder are conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonymous as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the order or include in or substitute any caste/ tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution Scheduled Tribes' define under Article 366 (25) as substituted under the Act, and the II Schedule thereunder are conclusive. Though the evidence may be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was in fact, included in the concerned Schedule, the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonymous to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or parts thereof or group of such caste of tribe..." 11.Article 46 of the Constitution of India specifically provides that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the society in particular of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. However, since the constitution came into force, the misuse of individual's social status is not a new phenomena in our society. In the present day situation, misuse of individual's social status has assumed a new dimension. In Nityanand Sharma's case, cited supra the Apex Court has observed," Spurious tribes have become a threat to genuine tribals". 12.In case of (Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University)3, 1996(1) J.T. S.C. 57 the Apex Court has observed as follows: "The retrograde attempt successively made by different communities in the country to wear the mask of status either of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to secure constitutional benefits of reservations and other economic empowerments, intended for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes meant for the latter to accord their economic, social and cultural advancement." 13.In case of (Madhuri Patil v. State)4, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. 690 (S.C.) the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "The Union of India of and the State Governments have prescribed the procedure and has entrusted duty entrusted duty and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue social status certificate, after due verification. It is common knowledge that endeavour of States to fulfill constitutional mandate of upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by providing the reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status while in fact disentitled to such status..." 14,Now, in order to arrest the misuse of social status from unscrupulous applicants, the Supreme Court has also laid down the procedure for issuance of social status certificate. In case of (Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri)5, A.I.R 1995 S.C. 1506 while laying down the procedure one of the requirements is that; ".....Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of police inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars, as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc." "The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request nor more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an enquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/ reply shall convene the Committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent /guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through Counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof...." 15.The Supreme Court, in clear terms, cautioned that in case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed 16.While reiterating the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in case of Director of Tribal Welfare (cited supra), it may be stated that, the burden of proof of social status is always on the person claiming the same. There is no hard and fast rule as to the standard of proof. Strict rules of evidence and standard proof envisaged therein do not apply to the departmental proceeding or domestic tribunal. It is open to the authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts, though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. It can, however, be ensured that the material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. It is open to the authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts, though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. It can, however, be ensured that the material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. The burden of proof can be discharged even by filing of affidavits of the close relations or blood relations and such other documents which are germane and relevant to the facts in issue in proof of social status claim. That means, the degree of standard of proof in case of social status claim is not of the same as required in civil proceedings. 17.Thus, it is clear that the applicant must adduce some evidence, however slight, upon which the authority must believe that the facts so claimed exit. In case of (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and others)6, 1991(2) S.C.C. 716 laid down: "The standard of proof is not a proof beyond reasonable doubt but preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. The standard of proof cannot be put in mathematical formula. The probative value could be gauged from facts and circumstances in a given case." 18.Keeping in view of the aforesaid nature of standard of proof even in case of proving the individual social status, we may turn to entry in birth extract of the petitioner's father, upon which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be stated that, as observed by the Apex Court in case of (Bhayyaram v. Aniruddha)7, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2533, unless the entry is required to be made about the caste in birth register under a Rule, merely because the entry appears that by itself is not sufficient to presume its correctness, unless contrary is proved. Therefore, the entry, on which reliance is placed in absence of relevant Rule in that behalf having been pointed out, cannot be presumed to be correct, so as to read it as a conclusive piece of evidence. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entry in the birth extract of the petitioner's father disclosing his caste as "Adivasi Thakur" cannot be regarded as a conclusive proof in support of individual status claim of the petitioner. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entry in the birth extract of the petitioner's father disclosing his caste as "Adivasi Thakur" cannot be regarded as a conclusive proof in support of individual status claim of the petitioner. 19.In this context, it is relevant to take advantage of the observation of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case (cited supra), in order to reach" a satisfactory conclusion as claimed social status, besides the entry, the petitioner is required to adduce further evidence to satisfy the crucial affinity test which is relevant and germane one. The totality of the evidence would convince the caste verification authority that particular applicant belongs to certain tribe. 20.Following the dicta in Madhuri Patil's case, cited supra, the Division Bench of this Court, in case of Vandana's case, 1998(4) Bom.C.R. 432 , cited by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has observed that, the entries in the school register of pre-independence period bear great probative value. We respectfully agree with that view. It, therefore, follows that the entry of petitioner's father, though of a pre-independence period, cannot be regarded as a conclusive evidence, even assuming that the presumption arises about its correctness. 21.As observed by the Supreme Court in Nityanand Sharma's case, cited supra unless the petitioner adduces evidence by applying test of affinity, it will not be possible to keep sole reliance on the aforesaid entry. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed that: "Despite the cultural advancement, the genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernised and progressed but they would not be oblivious or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The tribe or tribal communities, parts of or groups thereof have their peculiar traits." 22.Therefore, in our view the petitioner ought to have adduced further evidence based on the customary or cultural advancement based on their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe, as evidence to support the entry in the birth extract of father of the petitioner. The tribe or tribal communities, parts of or groups thereof have their peculiar traits." 22.Therefore, in our view the petitioner ought to have adduced further evidence based on the customary or cultural advancement based on their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe, as evidence to support the entry in the birth extract of father of the petitioner. 23.Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submit that if the opportunity is given to the petitioner he will furnish necessary data to establish the customary or cultural traits with the members of Thakur tribe. 24.It may be stated that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not called for the vigilance report. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in order to secure the petitioner's right guaranteed by Articles 15(4) and 16(1)(4) read with Articles 46 and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India. 25.In the result, we partly allow the petition, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter. We direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Tribe Claims, Maharashtra State Nasik to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner by giving him an opportunity to adduce additional evidence and also personal hearing, if he so desires. 26.We further direct that the claim of the petitioner should be decided within a period of six months from the receipt of the writ. 27.Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. *****