JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Smt. Jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 30-5-1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba (Scheduled Tribe) is invalidated. Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenged the validity and propriety of the impugned order mainly on the ground that the document, i.e. extract of School register relied upon by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is in respect of brother of grand-father of the petitioner, namely, Rama Shankar Koshti, in which caste is shown as "Koshti". The learned Counsel contended that the issue regarding caste claim of the brother of grand-father of petitioner is already concluded by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1880/1988 (Sunil v. State)1. The learned Counsel contended that Sunil is the son of Rama, who is brother of grand-father of the petitioner. The above referred writ petition was decided on 16-11-1988 and it was held that Sunil belongs to Halba (Scheduled Tribe). It is, therefore, contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of the above referred judgment of this Court, ought to have held that the petitioner belongs to Halba (Scheduled Tribe) and could not have construed the document in question otherwise. 3. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have verified as to whether petitioner belongs to Halba (Scheduled Tribe) in view of judgment of this Court in (Milind Sharad Katware and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, 1986(1) Bom.C.R. 403 . It is submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee should have undertaken a detailed enquiry in this regard and ought not to have concluded merely on the basis of the entry in the School register of brother of the grand-father of the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. It is submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee should have undertaken a detailed enquiry in this regard and ought not to have concluded merely on the basis of the entry in the School register of brother of the grand-father of the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. Smt. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee, supported the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and contended that in view of the order dated 26-8-1999 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is entitled to consider the claim of the student independently on its merits irrespective of the fact that the claim of his relative has already been considered by this Court in other writ petition. 5. Smt. Deshpande further contended that the extract of School register of brother of grand-father of petitioner was the document, which pertained to year 1938 and, therefore, it is the original authentic document, which was considered as a basis for verifying the caste claim of the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is just and proper. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the observations of Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 7-8-1997 in Writ Petition No. 1788/1997, which read thus : "We have already held in Writ Petition No. 1887/97 (Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra)3, that the jurisdiction of Scrutiny Committee is limited to either validating or denying the validation of the caste claim of the students. It does not have any jurisdiction in declaring a student to be belonging to some other caste as has happened in the above cases. The circumstances are identical in these cases also. The petitioners claim to be belonging to 'Halbi Tribe' while they are held to be belonging to 'Halba Koshti Tribe'. This was clearly not possible." Learned Counsel Smt. Deshpande, therefore, supported the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1. 6. The circumstances are identical in these cases also. The petitioners claim to be belonging to 'Halbi Tribe' while they are held to be belonging to 'Halba Koshti Tribe'. This was clearly not possible." Learned Counsel Smt. Deshpande, therefore, supported the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1. 6. After careful consideration of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am not impressed that the Scrutiny Committee is not entitled to consider the claim on merits since the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1880/88 dated 16-11-1988, relied upon by the learned Counsel, was delivered primarily relying on the Circular dated 12-9-1986 issued by the Tribal Development Department, which was withdrawn by the State Government on 29-5-2000. Be that as it may, this Court in judgment dated 16-11-1988 in Writ Petition No. 1880/88 did not consider on merits the document, i.e. extract of School register of Shankar, brother of grand-father of petitioner, pertaining to year 1938 and, therefore, same, in my opinion, may not have positive bearing on the issue in question. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Caste Scrutiny Committee should have conducted a detailed enquiry in order to find out whether petitioner belongs to Halba Tribe though caste mentioned in the concerned extract of School register of brother of grand-father of petitioner is Koshti is also misconceived since the said jurisdiction, in my opinion, does not vest in the Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1887/97 Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra. In the instant case, there is no challenge to validity of extract of School register of brother of grand-father of petitioner obtained by Police Vigilance Cell during enquiry and the said document pertains to year 1938 and has probative evidentiary value and the same has rightly been relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee while considering caste claim of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that matter may be remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of giving opportunity to petitioner to place other documents pertaining to his caste claim, which are filed by the petitioner along with this petition in this Court and could not be filed before Caste Scrutiny Committee since petitioner was relying on the above referred judgment dated 16-11-1988 of this Court. Smt. Deshpande opposed the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The request of the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage because petitioner ought to have filed all necessary documents on which he wanted to place reliance in order to prove his caste claim before Caste Scrutiny Committee at the relevant time. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for suspending the effect and operation of this judgment for a period of eight weeks from today in order to enable the petitioner to approach Apex Court. In the circumstances, it will be proper to grant such request. The effect and operation of this judgment is suspended for eight weeks from today and interim order shall cease to operate after eight weeks unless appropriate orders are obtained from the Apex Court. Petition dismissed. -----