ORDER A.K. Gohil, J. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who was working as a Member Judge in the Industrial Tribunal, has challenged the order dated 24-8-2001 passed by the State Level Committee constituted by the State Government in obedience to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and Ors. v. Additional Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas, AIR 1995 SC 1994 vide Notification dated 1-8-1996 for scrutinizing the cases of issuing caste certificates in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and for scrutiny of complaints in this regard. The brief facts as not disputed and submitted by the Petitioner for admission of this writ petition are that the Petitioner belongs to caste "Silawat" which is declared as a scheduled caste in the State of M. P. under Part IX of the First Schedule to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act (No. 108 of 1976) which came into force on 20-9-1976 in which case "Silawat" has been declared as scheduled caste in the year 1976 and is at Entry No. 46 of the list. The Petitioner obtained a caste certificate dated 19-8-1981 issued by the Tehsildar, Mahidpur where the Petitioner was residing and applied for the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The Petitioner was selected by the M.P. Public Service Commission and was appointed on the post of Labour Judge as a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste. After the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Member Judge one Smt. Laxmi Jain, working as a Labour Judge, filed an application before State Administrative Tribunal u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 calling in question the promotion of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner does not belong to "Silawat" caste (scheduled caste). The said application was registered as O.A. No. 281 of 1997 and was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25-8-1998 directing the Respondent State to get an enquiry conducted by a Senior Level Officer including one member as an expert in the subject to settle the dispute about the caste of the Petitioner. The said order passed by the SAT was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1831 of 1998 before this High Court. The said order passed by the SAT was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1831 of 1998 before this High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, as per the judgment of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to the State Level Committee for deciding the question about caste of the Petitioner. The Petitioner appeared before the State Level Committee and submitted representations on 4-6-1999, on 1-1-2001, on 27-1-2001, and on 28-6-2001 along with the documents. By the time, the Petitioner's Writ Petition No. 1831 of 1998 came up for hearing before this High Court, the Committee had already submitted its report on 18-11-1999. This High Court, therefore, disposed of the said petition with liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw the petition and to assail the aforesaid report in a separate remedy. Thereafter the Petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 111 of 2000. This writ petition was heard and disposed of by order dated 31-8-2000. The High Court quashed the order of the State Level Committee and remanded the case back to the State Level Committee for decision afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made in the writ petition. It was further directed that the Petitioner as also the intervenor shall be accorded full opportunity to adduce evidence in support and oppugnation of the certificate. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before the State Level Committee and the State Level Committee, after holding an enquiry into the matter, by order dated 14-8-2001 held that the Petitioner does not belong to caste "Silawat" against which the Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the State Level Committee being illegal and contrary to law. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri S.S. Samvatsar, for Petitioner; Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents/State; and Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned Counsel for newly added Respondent No. 3. The submission of Shri Chaphekar is that the constitution of State Level Committee, which has decided the matter, is not in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). His submission was that the Supreme Court has specifically stated that in case of Scheduled Caste, an officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificate should be included in the committee. His submission was that the Supreme Court has specifically stated that in case of Scheduled Caste, an officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificate should be included in the committee. His further objection was that in the constitution of Committee Director, Adim Jati Anusandhan Sansthan was included as a specialist in the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes but he has not signed the report and in his place one Indu Murab who is Anusandhan Adhikari has signed the report. Therefore, it is clear that the person who was included in the Committee as a specialist has not passed the said order and thus the order is without jurisdiction. It was further argued by Shri Chaphekar that an objection about composition of the State Level Committee was raised and a request was made to decide the said objection as a preliminary issue but the said objection was not at ail considered by the Committee and it was argued that thus the Committee acted in a prejudicial manner against the Petitioner. It was further pointed out that the members appointed by the Government are not personally attending on all the dates but different persons were attending the Committee. Besides, the proceedings also show that all the members did not sit together on all the dates of meetings. Thus, there was no joint participation of all the members of the Committee during its proceedings. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for Petitioner vehemently argued only on the point of constitution of Committee and participation of members jointly and has not pressed any other ground into service and in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Indira Shahni's case reported in Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., and also the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil, reported in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, and also cited the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another, and also relied on the decision cited by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 31-8-2001 in Writ Petition No. 111 of 2000, Syndicate Bank Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, and also cited the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another, and also relied on the decision cited by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 31-8-2001 in Writ Petition No. 111 of 2000, Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Stff Association and Another, In reply Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents/State on advance copy also vehemently opposed the admission of this writ petition and submitted that the writ petition is premature; the Petitioner is having alternative remedy. He further submitted that the State Government has already issued charge-sheet to the Petitioner, he may further have an opportunity before the Enquiry Officer to challenge the report and also to lead evidence on the question of caste certificate and thereafter if the Enquiry Officer will not consider, he will have a right to challenge the same before the Court of law. His further submission was that in latter case of Ganesh Suroshe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, , the Apex Court has held that when the scrutiny committee applied affinity test and negatived his claim as a "Ma Thakur" or "Ka Thakur" High Court cannot interfere with the findings of committee under Article 226 and the order passed by the committee is conclusive and final. Shri D.D. Vyas filed one affidavit of the Officer-in-charge submitting therein that the State of M.P. by order dated 8-9-1997 constituted a Committee for enquiry and scrutiny of caste certificate and by another order dated 4-12-1998 also appointed Director, National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, State Office, Bhopal as a special invitee Member of the Committee. He further submitted in the affidavit that Director, Tribal Welfare Research Institute, Bhopal by order dated 1-11-2000 had nominated Smt. Indu Murab, Research Officer, Bhopal as Member and further submitted that in all there were 5 Members in the Committee, viz., (1) Secretary, Government of M.P., Ministry of Scheduled Castes Welfare Department, Bhopal; (2) Director, Scheduled Castes Development, M.P., Bhopal; (3) Director, National Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Commission, Govt. of India, Headquarter, Bhopal; (4) Director, Tribal Welfare Research Institution, Bhopal; and (5) Secretary, State Scheduled Castes Commission, Bhopal, and his further submission is that in this case on all dates of enquiry the above members were present and the final report, has been signed by all the Members those who are the Members of the Committee and present on all the dates of hearing except hearings on 28-4-2001 and 2-6-2001. On 2-6-2001 one Member i.e. Secretary, Scheduled Castes Commission was not present because he was on leave, on that date only it was objected that since one Member is not present today, therefore, the meeting of the Committee be adjourned but it was not accepted. On the contrary his application to appear before the Committee and to plead through counsel Shri Brijmohan Gehlot was allowed and he was also permitted to cross-examine with the witnesses. Therefore, the submission of Shri Vyas is that the Committee was legally and validly constituted as per Notification dated 8-9-1997 and in addition to existing four members, one Director, National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission was nominated as special invitee as per order dated 4-12-1998. Therefore, the Committee of 5 senior Members was constituted, those who were having the special knowledge about the members of the Scheduled Caste community. Shri Vyas further submitted that this objection of the learned Counsel for Petitioner that the Committee did not function according to law and all the Members of the Committee were not available on all the dates of hearing is not true. It is also not true that at any point of time such an objection was taken by the Petitioner before the Committee that the Committee is not legally and validly constituted. Further submission of Shri Vyas is that this objection also carries no meaning that the Members of the Committee never had any joint deliberation and have mechanically signed the final report without application of mind or the Members who signed the report, were not present at the time of hearing. Therefore, the submission of Shri Vyas is that the Committee has legally followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case Madhuri Patil (supra) and also of Syndicate Bank (supra) that all the Members sit together and act together at all times. Therefore, the submission of Shri Vyas is that the Committee has legally followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case Madhuri Patil (supra) and also of Syndicate Bank (supra) that all the Members sit together and act together at all times. Committee has recorded evidence and recorded a finding which is not a matter of challenge because this Court is not sitting as Court of appeal and the further submission of Shri Vyas that while submitting the report Committee has jointly and categorically examined, scrutinized all the documents which were filed before the State Level Committee and came to a conclusion that in all the relevant documents pertaining to the agricultural land and other certificates of all the family members of the Petitioner in which it has been shown that the caste of the Petitioner and his all family members have been mentioned as "Kumawat" and not as a "Silawat". His further submission was that when the caste of all the family members of the Petitioner have been mentioned as "Kumawat" by no stretch of imagination it can be treated "Silawat'. It may be true that some of the members belonging to "Silawat" caste may be writing their surname as "Kumawat" but merely writing surname as "Kumawat" it cannot spoil their original caste. It was further pointed out by Shri Vyas that in all the relevant documents like Khasra entries, school certificates of all the family members of the Petitioner specially their caste "Kumawat" has been mentioned and that the committee has rightly considered those relevant documents of the Petitioner and his family members and his relatives and other service record of the brother and family members. Shri Vyas and Shri Kutumble learned Counsel appearing for the State and intervener Respondent No. 3 both supported the action of the enquiry Committee and finally prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the State Level Committee and also considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Apropos the validity of the constitution of the Committee as per Notification dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P/18) is concerned, it was originally of 4 Members and specially by order dated 4-12-1998 one more Member as a special invitee was added in the Committee. The impugned report Annexure-P/12 has been signed by all 5 Members. Apropos the validity of the constitution of the Committee as per Notification dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P/18) is concerned, it was originally of 4 Members and specially by order dated 4-12-1998 one more Member as a special invitee was added in the Committee. The impugned report Annexure-P/12 has been signed by all 5 Members. The learned Additional Advocate General by filing an affidavit has already clarified their original official designation of officers who have signed the report (Annexure-P/12) as well as their designation in the Committee. In case of Madhuri Patil (supra) the Apex Court with a view to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, had issued guidelines and the Guideline No. 4, relating to the appointment of Committee, is as under: (4) All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three Officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare, Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities. Therefore, in this case it has to be seen whether the State has constituted the Committee as per the directions given in case of Madhuri Patil (supra) or not? As per the notification a Committee was constituted which was headed by the Secretary, Ministry and Department of Scheduled Castes Welfare; Director, Scheduled Castes Welfare Department; Director, National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, as a special invitee; and the Secretary, Scheduled Castes Ayog; and one Research Officer in the Directorate of Scheduled Castes Research Institute was also made as a Member. Therefore, all the Members of the Committee constituted in this case were senior officers of the Scheduled Caste Welfare Department of the State Government of M.P. Director of National Commission (Ayog) on Scheduled Caste, Secretary of M.P. State Scheduled Caste Commission and one Research Officer from Scheduled Caste-Research Institute, who were fully conversant with the problems of Scheduled Castes were included in the Committee and they were having intimate knowledge in the verification and issuing of the social status certificates. Therefore, the Committee was legally and properly constituted as per direction of the Supreme Court. This objection of Shri Chaphekar that in place of Director, Scheduled Caste Research Institute, Research Officer was included and allowed to represent also carries no meaning, because as per direction in Madhuri Patil's case Research Officer has important role to play instead of Administrative Officer like Director of the Institute. Research Officer can be said to have more expertise knowledge of the subject. Therefore, it is clear that in the Committee proper representation was given to all the concerned experts available in the field of Scheduled Caste and merely on this ground that in place of Director, Research Officer was included, the constitution of the Committee cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. I have also perused the proceedings of the Committee. From the perusal of the proceedings dated 9-1-2001; 29-1-2001; 30-1-2001 and 14-5-2001 on record it is clear that on most of the material hearings 4 to 5 Members were present and have conducted the proceedings jointly. All the Members of the Committee have jointly prepared and signed the report, then it cannot be argued by the Petitioner that there is no compliance of the directions given in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) that all the members should sit together at all times and should take decision together at all times and should act independently and should not be biased against any party. In this case there are no allegations against the State Level Committee about its partisaned or biased attitude. At all material time all Members were available and they have considered the case jointly. Therefore, from the proceedings and the report it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that on all the material hearings all the members of the Committee were not present or the report has not been prepared after joint deliberation and all the Members have not considered the case of the Petitioner jointly in the spirit as laid down by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid cases. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not argued any other point before me about biased attitude of the State Level Committee or that the opportunity of hearing was not given. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not argued any other point before me about biased attitude of the State Level Committee or that the opportunity of hearing was not given. In fact, only arguments relating to constitution and jurisdiction of the Committee were pressed into service which I think does not find support from the record of the proceedings as discussed above. In the report it has been also clearly mentioned that the Petitioner himself was not present before the Committee on 28-4-2001, 9-8-2001, 17-8-2001 and on 24-8-2001 to discharge his burden. The Petitioner himself has failed to furnish any sufficient explanation or evidence before the State Level Committee that why his caste "Kumawat" has been mentioned in his own service and revenue and his brothers school, record which is the cause of this dispute. The Committee after hearing, examining, scrutinizing the entire documents filed by the Petitioner as well as by the intervenor and also examining the entire school, service and revenue record of the Petitioner as well as of his sons, father, brother and his and their family members and after a detailed scrutiny and expert research study of the Caste of the Petitioner his father, brothers and their entire family members came on a firm conclusion that in all the records their caste "Kumawat" has been mentioned not "Silawat" and has found that the Petitioner belongs to caste "Kumawat" which is not a Scheduled Caste under the Notification and it was further found that he is not the Member of caste "Silawat" which is a Scheduled Caste and has directed to cancel his caste certificate dated 19-9-1981. In the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, , it has been further held that undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden heavily lies on the applicant, who seeks such a certificate, including the role of the Committee. In the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) the Apex Court has already held that the High Court is not court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee to ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. I have considered the submissions and perused the record of the State Level Committee. Petitioner himself could not produce any record before the State Level Committee to prove the case otherwise or to come on a different conclusion, as has been drawn by the committee in its expert report. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussions and observations, I find that there is a compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in this case and all the Members have jointly considered the case of the Petitioner on the basis of available documents and evidence and on expert report on record, after providing full opportunity of hearing and defending to the Petitioner, including one to prove his case that he had rightly, and on the basis of genesis of family had obtained caste certificate. After considering the entire evidence available on record I find that there is no illegality in the report of the State Level Committee. Thus, I do not find a case for interference in this writ petition and consequently the writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed