Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable by consent. Petition is heard. 2. The petitioner herein is challenging the order of termination of her services passed by respondent No.2 on 18-12-2008 and the order passed by respondent No.3 – Caste Scrutiny Committee on 10-6-1991 invalidating her tribe claim. 3. It is not in dispute that the fate of challenge to the order of termination of services is contingent upon fate of challenge to the order passed by respondent No.3 – Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s tribe claim. Case proceeds on admitted background that the respondents do not have any policy to protect the employment of persons whose caste/tribe claim is invalidated or who got employment by suppression etc. 4. It is seen that way back in 1991, the petitioner’s tribe claim was considered by respondent No.3 – Scrutiny Committee. 5. Petitioner claims that when her tribe claim was scrutinized and invalidated, the petitioner was 17 years of age and her father had pursued the cause and she does not know what she has suffered. 6. Perusal of the decision of Scrutiny Committee discloses the observations contained in the impugned order, as follows: “While giving the opportunity to the candidate of personal hearing she was advised to bring any elderly person with her so that it would be easier for the candidate to establish her tribe claim by furnishing the traits, characteristics and other allied information about the tribe claimed by her. Accordingly, the candidate along with her father appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on 9.4.91 and both of them were heard fully.” (Quoted from pages 17 and 18 of the petition) 7. It is thus seen that the petitioner accompanied by her father was present before the Scrutiny Committee. 8. Perusal of the decision of Scrutiny Committee reveals that the Scrutiny Committee had scrutinized the evidence and observed that:- (a) Any evidence as to father’s school record was not brought, though the father had promised to bring it. (b) The documentary evidence brought by the petitioner was discussed by the Committee in detail. (c) The Committee found the documentary evidence to be unworthy of evidentiary value. For this finding, the Committee has recorded reasons. (d) The entry in service book of the father of the petitioner could also not be of any help to prove the petitioner’s tribe claim. (c) The Committee found the documentary evidence to be unworthy of evidentiary value. For this finding, the Committee has recorded reasons. (d) The entry in service book of the father of the petitioner could also not be of any help to prove the petitioner’s tribe claim. (e) The caste certificate issued to her father by Halba Samaj Mahasangh, Nagpur, had no evidentiary value. 9. Moreover, the Committee observed as regards authenticity or genuineness of the Organization – Halba Samaj Mahasangh issuing the certificate that the petitioner belongs to tribals, is not proved, and found that the said certificate issued by such Organization could not be relied on, though in a different language. 10. The Committee then found as to the other evidence as follows: “ ... The candidate and her father at the time of personal hearing had promised to produce certain documents to the Scrutiny Committee but they have utterly failed to do so. In absence of vital basic documentary evidence, no other alternative was left to the Scrutiny Committee than to conduct the enquiry in the matter. In the enquiry conducted at Nagar Palika Vidyalaya No.1, Warud, the name of the candidate’s uncle has appeared in admission register at Reg.No.2857. The candidate’s uncle is admitted in the said school in the year 1943 in 1st Std. And his caste is clearly recorded there as Koshti. This is an old and basic documentary evidence which is obtained by the Scrutiny Committee. This document throws light on the fact that the family originally by birth belongs to Koshti caste.” (Quoted from page 21 of the petition. Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience) 11. It is seen that no steps were taken by the petitioner to meet and disprove what had come on the record of Scrutiny Committee which was adverse to petitioner’s tribe claim and for which she was noticed. 12. The Committee, therefore, found that the candidate and her father belonged to caste Koshti and not the Scheduled Tribe “Halba”. 13. While challenging the said decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the following points are urged: (i) The Scrutiny Committee itself was not aware or alive as to its former decision adverse to petitioner till the fresh enquiry was advanced much. (ii) During first impugned scrutiny the petitioner was minor and she did not even remember whatever has transpired and apprehends that she did not get fair opportunity. 14. (ii) During first impugned scrutiny the petitioner was minor and she did not even remember whatever has transpired and apprehends that she did not get fair opportunity. 14. It is evident that the petitioner had appeared before the Committee along with her father. It is not emerging nor shown that interest of petitioner’s father was in conflict or adverse or was otherwise hostile. All that is evident is that he did not possess and could not explore any evidence to prove the tribe claim which the petitioner urged to belong to. 15. It is also seen from the petition that after invalidation of the tribe claim, the petitioner pursued her education in the faculty of engineering in open category, because she had lost her tribe claim, which she admits in the present writ petition. 16. Now the petitioner cannot take benefit of the fact that upon initiation of the proceedings for verification of scrutiny of the tribe claim, the enquiry was initiated by the Scrutiny Committee advanced few stages, and it was of late noticed that her tribe claim was already verified and rejected. 17. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner’s challenge to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is not based on legal grounds or on any factual foundation. 18. The contentions of the petitioner raised before this Court, noted in foregoing para No.11, are totally baseless from what has emerged on reading of the report of the Committee. 19. In the result, the petitioner’s challenge to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee fails. 20. The order of removal of the petitioner from service, which is at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition, is passed consequent upon the invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner. It is evident that after the petitioner’s tribe claim was invalidated and she took education in open category, still by suppressing these facts, she had secured employment in reserved category and derived benefits for long duration from 1999 to 2008. She could not have secured employment except by suppressing these facts. 21. As the petitioner’s basic eligibility of tribe claim was totally lacking, she is not entitled to remain in employment. 22. The order of termination of the petitioner’s services is thus based on sound reasons and does not call for any interference. 23. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 24. Rule is discharged with costs.