ORAL JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Rule is heard by consent. 2. The petitioner's tribe claim has been invalidated by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, rendered on 12-9-2007. 3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee caused the home enquiry through Vigilance Cell. The Research Officer gave adverse opinion. 4. The report of Vigilance Cell was served on the petitioner with the show cause notice dated 16-5-2007 forwarding the documents consisting of 55 pages collected by the Vigilance Cell. 5. The petitioner has furnished his reply to the show cause notice. 6. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of his tribe claim. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated petitioner's tribe claim, which decision is challenged in this petition. 7. Heard parties through learned Advocates at length. Perused the record, consisting the report of the Vigilance Cell and documents accompanying thereto consisting of statements recorded by the Officers who were the members of 2010(1) Mh.L.J.] SURENDRASINGH vs. S. T. C. C. S. C., NAGPUR 653 I Vigilance Cell, documents collected by them and various documents furnished by the petitioner before the Vigilance Cell. 8. Perusal of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee reveals that the Committee has considered the reply submitting by the claimant. 9. It is recorded by the Committee that the petitioner sought for further time to submit additional documents. This request was accepted and case was fixed on 4-7-2007. The petitioner again sought time which was granted up to 207-2007 on which date, he was given hearing. On 22-7-2007, the petitioner again applied for grant of further time, however, did not furnish any document. 10. In absence of production of any evidence by the petitioner, the Committee had to proceed on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell, and other documents on record. 11. The Committee noticed that the Vigilance Cell has collected 14 documents, amongst which documents at Sf. Nos. 1, 5 to 14 all contain caste of father of petitioner and other near relatives such as grand-mother, sister and brother all are recorded as 'Pardesi (Bhamta)' or 'Pardesi' or 'Pardesi Kshatriya' or 'Rajput Pardesi', but not as "Chhatari". 12. It is seen that the documents at Item Nos. 2 and 3 do not mention any caste of tribe. 13. 1, 5 to 14 all contain caste of father of petitioner and other near relatives such as grand-mother, sister and brother all are recorded as 'Pardesi (Bhamta)' or 'Pardesi' or 'Pardesi Kshatriya' or 'Rajput Pardesi', but not as "Chhatari". 12. It is seen that the documents at Item Nos. 2 and 3 do not mention any caste of tribe. 13. It is seen that the document at Item No. 4 consists of mention Kshatriya. It was then seen that in service record of the petitioner's father who is serving in District Health Department, his caste is mentioned as Pardesi, while School record of the petitioner's father indicates his caste to be Pardesi (Bhamta). 14. The petitioner's grand-father's caste is recorded in the Office of Land Record in the year 1923-24 as Rajput. 15. The Scrutiny Committee then analysed the information gathered by the Vigilance Cell pertaining to the affinity test including, family traits and practices, surnames of relatives etc. which all indicated' the nexus of the petitioner's relations with Rajputs and not with Scheduled Tribe Kshatriya. 16. It is in the afore discussed b&ckground and upon appreciation of the record, the Committee had rendered adverse decision. 17. In this writ petition, the petitioner has agitated the questions namely that :(a) the entry of the petitioner's father recorded in his School record as Kshatriya is not taken into consideration; (b) that the Committee has failed to consider the reply given by the petitioner; and (c) that in oral submissions, it is argued that Rajput is a race and not caste. (d) The study by Major C. B. Lucie Smith, it was shown that 164 Chattaris belonging to Rajput race had migrated were noticed to be the residents of Chandrapur District; and (e) It has been laid down in judgment reported in 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 402 , Gayatrilaxmi vs. State of Maharashtra stating that the rejection of claim results in serious consequences of deprivation of constitutional status and the scrutiny ought to be done by taking great care. 654 SURENDRASINGH vs. S. T. C. C. S. c., NAGPUR [2010(1) Mh.L.J. 18. In the background of various challenges, this Court has observed/noticed as follows :(1) The tribe claim of the petitioner's father to be belonging to Chhattari Scheduled Tribe . is based on solitary entry as against the contradictory entries of other close relatives. 654 SURENDRASINGH vs. S. T. C. C. S. c., NAGPUR [2010(1) Mh.L.J. 18. In the background of various challenges, this Court has observed/noticed as follows :(1) The tribe claim of the petitioner's father to be belonging to Chhattari Scheduled Tribe . is based on solitary entry as against the contradictory entries of other close relatives. (2) The father's caste is shown to be Rajput or Pardesi at various places and record therefore, there is no unanimity of record of the petitioner's father. (3) The Vigilance Cell found petitioner's claim not to be genuine. (4) Adverse report of the Vigilance Cell was served on the petitioner and he was called upon to prove his tribe claim. (5) The petitioner does not complain that he was not given an opportunity to prove his tribe claim. (6) The petitioner does not dispute that he did not bring evidence. (7) Though he claims that his reply is not considered, he does not specify as to which amongst his contentions are not dealt with by the Committee. (8) In the body of the petition any specific adverse finding rendered by the Committee is not challenged. 19. Whole tenor of submissions of learned Advocate for petitioner as if law fastens a burden on the Committee to prove that the claimant is staking a tribe claim which is false. 20. The petitioner's arguments have a tenor where he proceeds on a belief and assumption as if the law raises a presumption about tribe claim made by the petitioner to be presumed to be true and of the category of ' shall presume' or 'conclusive proof, and that the Committee has duty to disprove it. 21. This belief and submission is contrary to section 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, as construed by this Court in case of Deorao s/o Ganpatrao Umredkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008(1) MhLJ. 364 , and the Full Bench Judgment in case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 995 = 2009(4) ALL MR 127. 22. 364 , and the Full Bench Judgment in case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 995 = 2009(4) ALL MR 127. 22. In view of this finding, present is a clear case where the petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe "Chhattari" his claim is based on belief than on the basis of his proof of being related to a Scheduled Tribe, being a leniar descendent of tribal. 23. In the result, the petition fails. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.