JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.:---Heard Shri V.R. Choudhary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri, A.S. Fulzele, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1, Shri S.M. Puranik, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri N.K. Fuladi, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2.Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.The petitioner obtained a Caste Certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) from the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur. On the basis of the said Scheduled Tribe Certificate, the petitioner sought an employment under the respondent No. 3-Dena Bank against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate in the cadre of clerk. On selection, the petitioner came to be appointed in the post of clerk, with effect from 20th of March, 1989 and, thereafter, he came to be confirmed in the said post, sometime in September, 1989. The respondent No. 3 Bank, after lapse of period of about six years, forwarded the tribe certificate of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (hereinafter referred to as "Caste Scrutiny Committee"). The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Tribe claim of the petitioner by an order dated 29-12-1997 and being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2180 of 1998. After hearing the parties, this Court remitted back the matter to the respondent No. 2 Committee for de novo enquiry in accordance with law. After remand of the matter, again the Enquiry Committee made an enquiry in the tribe claim of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 26-11-2001, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner and directed confiscation of the Tribe certificate. Aggrieved by the same, initially writ petition was filed at the principal sear of this Court at Bombay, but because of territorial objection, instant writ petition has been filed at Nagpur. 4.What is relevant to note is that during the pendency of the petition the services of the petitioner came to the terminated by the respondent No. 3-Dena Bank, acting on the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the claim of the petitioner to the Scheduled Tribe. 4.What is relevant to note is that during the pendency of the petition the services of the petitioner came to the terminated by the respondent No. 3-Dena Bank, acting on the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the claim of the petitioner to the Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order passed by the bank is dated 2nd of April, 2003 and the said order being consequential order issued, pursuant to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, same is also challenged in the instant petition by amending the petition. The present writ petition came to be filed on 30th January, 2003 and the petitioners services came to be terminated during pendency of the petition by the impugned order. 5.The petitioner has placed on record a genealogical tree indicating the petitioners relation with various persons namely in the genealogical tree in regard to who documents were placed on record of the Scrutiny Committee. Perusal of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee reveals that the petitioner had placed on record as many as 16 documents to substantiate his Tribe claim to be "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). Each and every document categorically shows that the petitioner and/or his near relations are "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). Amongst the documents are at Sr. Nos. 9, 10, 14 and 15 as numbered by the Scrutiny Committee in its order. Document No. 9 is the copy of the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioners father, whereas document No. 10 is a copy of the High School Leaving Certificate of the petitioners father. The first document is dated 12-6-1942 and the other is dated 1-7-1946. The said two documents being prior to the issuance of the notification by the President of India under Article 342 of the Constitution of India has great probative value. The said two documents are rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by recording the following reasons. "The documents quoted at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10 cannot be relied upon even though it is old entry as in upper caste Thakur also the old entry is of Thakur. Therefore, these documents are rejected on the basis of socio-cultural traits, affinity and ethnic linkage." 6.It is thus evident that, with the above reproduced cryptic reasoning, vital documents of pre-constitutional era are rejected. Nos. 9 and 10 cannot be relied upon even though it is old entry as in upper caste Thakur also the old entry is of Thakur. Therefore, these documents are rejected on the basis of socio-cultural traits, affinity and ethnic linkage." 6.It is thus evident that, with the above reproduced cryptic reasoning, vital documents of pre-constitutional era are rejected. Perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee reveals that it presupposes that in Thakur Scheduled Tribe, there is an upper class or caste and lower class or caste and person belongs to the so called lower class, alone could be treated as Scheduled Tribe and not person belonging to the so called upper class from the Thakur Community. Document at Sr. No. 14 is the xerox copy of validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik on 26-3-97 in favour of one Krishnaji Madhukar Visale. The said Krishnaji is a near paternal blood relative of the petitioner. The last relevant document is at Sr. No. 15 and its copy of the order passed by this Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1994, in regard to one Kamlakar Sharad Visale, again a near relation of the petitioner. All documents right from the time prior to the issuance of the Presidential order convincingly and clinchingly show that the petitioner and his near relations are recorded as "Thakur". The Caste Scrutiny Committee has observed in its order as under : "Test of old documentary entry as per Madhuri Patils case in respect of the Scheduled Tribe entry which is synonymous with general or other tribe entry, has no role and bearing on the issue of determination of tribe claim. Thus, in deciding the tribe claim of the Scheduled Tribe Thakur, old entry of Thakur has no bearing and value as in upper caste Thakur also the entry of Thakur is noted in the old documents." 7.Rejecting the entire documentary evidence, the committee has proceeded to let in evidence in the form of affinity test, traits and ethnic linkage and by placing reliance thereon, proceeded to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. The old documents having presumptive and probative value are totally discarded on as assumption that in Thakur community, there is a backward and a forward class and those who belong to forward class, Thakur, are not the Scheduled Tribe. The old documents having presumptive and probative value are totally discarded on as assumption that in Thakur community, there is a backward and a forward class and those who belong to forward class, Thakur, are not the Scheduled Tribe. 8.Shri Choudhari, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once there is an entry in regard to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe in the notification issued by the President of India under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, then it is not permissible for any authority to let in any evidence or to make any enquiry as to whether any group from the said entry is excluded there from on the ground that the said group is not backward and does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)620 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1 (State of Maharashtra v. Milind others)1, it is submitted that it is not open for either the Court or any authority to let in any evidence or to make an enquiry. Emphasis is laid on para 26 of the judgment, which as under: "Being in respectful agreement, we reaffirm the ratio of the two Constitution Bench judgments aforementioned and state in clear terms that no enquiry at all is permissible the no evidence can be let in, to find out the decide that if any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included within the scope and meaning of the concerned Entry in the Presidential order when it is not so expressly or specifically included.........." 9.If this be the position in law then converse has to be equally true. If no evidence could be let in and no enquiry is permissible to add anything to the entries in the scheduled, there cannot be any enquiry permissible and no evidence can be let in to subtract from the entry in the schedule as well. In an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2003(4) Bom.C.R. 535 ; (Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra others)2, has held that the scrutiny committee was not justified and as a matter of law had no competence to go into the question, by holding enquiry, as to whether the petitioner belongs to caste Thakar of Bhat category. The Presidential Order has to be read as it is and applied accordingly without any tinkering whatsoever. The Tribe Thakur throughout the State of Maharashtra has to be treated as Scheduled Tribe, and benefit of reservation cannot be denied to any member of Thakur Scheduled Tribe by holding that though the member is Thakur he is not backward. 10.In view of the aforestated settled position, we have no iota of doubt, in our mind, that as the petitioner has been shown to be "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe and as all the documentary evidence clinchingly establishes the petitioner as "Thakur", the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting the petitioners tribe claim. The documentary evidence, includes documents for the period, prior to issuance of Presidential Order and has a great probative value. All the documentary evidence which has presumptive and probative value has been rejected solely for the reason that the petitioner failed to establish ethic linkage with Thakur Scheduled Tribe and failed in the affinity test, according to the Committee. The Committee also exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law in holding that the petitioner though a Thakur belongs to forward class or some other caste of the Thakur Community and hence, he is not a Scheduled Tribe. Neither the Committee had jurisdiction to make an enquiry nor the Committee is justified in presupposing that amongst Thakurs, there are groups, some forward and some backward and the backward group alone has affinity with the Scheduled Tribe and not the so-called forward group within Thakur community. 11.We disapprove the approach and the reasons adopted by the Scrutiny Committee for the obvious reason that once it is found that a person belongs to a given Tribe, then it is not permissible to make an inquiry to ascertain a so whether the said person is really a tribal or otherwise. As all the documents, particularly those which relate to the period prior to the issuance of the Presidential order unequivocally show that the petitioner is Thakur and as Thakur is included in the list of entries of Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra, the petitioners tribe claim has to be accepted. As all the documents, particularly those which relate to the period prior to the issuance of the Presidential order unequivocally show that the petitioner is Thakur and as Thakur is included in the list of entries of Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra, the petitioners tribe claim has to be accepted. 12.Once the petitioners claim of Thakur Scheduled Tribe is accepted, then obviously the consequential order of termination issued by the respondent No. 3-Dena Bank and impugned in this petition has to fall to the ground and is required to be quashed and set aside. In our opinion, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is wholly unsustainable in law. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b) of (b-1). There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----