Judgment : Oral Judgment: (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with, by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee by which the caste claim of "Rajput Bhamta" (Vimukta Jatis) has been invalidated. 3. The petitioner was born on 23rd March, 1989. He was admitted to a school which he left on 5th August, 1999. The school leaving certificate issued to him indicated that he was a "Hindu Bhamta Rajput". The petitioner applied for validation of his caste certificate after he was selected for the first year Mechanical Engineering Course with the respondent No.3 College. His results for the first year were not declared because the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee had not validated his caste claim. The petitioner, then filed Writ Petition No.5077/2008 before this Court for a declaration of his results for the first year. The writ petition was allowed and the petitioner’s results were directed to be provisionally declared. It was further directed that he would be entitled to provisional admission if he was found to be successful. This direction was subject to the issuance of the caste validity certificate in the petitioner’s favour by the Scrutiny Committee. It was also made clear that if the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the Committee he would claim no equity. 4. The Scrutiny Committee, after considering the report of the Home Enquiry and the Vigilance Cell report, besides other documents produced by the petitioner, has negatived the claim of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner had not been able to establish that his caste was "Rajput Bhamta" and not "Rajput". The Scrutiny Committee while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another V/s Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1995 (2) Bom.C.R.690), held that the petitioner had not been able to establish his case. It was held that the Home Enquiry also did not conclusively prove the social status of the petitioner of being from the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe. The Scrutiny Committee took into consideration the various other documents filed by the petitioner including the validity certificates issued in favour of one Yogini Santoshkumar Rajput and Bhagwan Narsing Zalte, who the petitioner claims, were his cousins. The Scrutiny Committee took into consideration the various other documents filed by the petitioner including the validity certificates issued in favour of one Yogini Santoshkumar Rajput and Bhagwan Narsing Zalte, who the petitioner claims, were his cousins. The Committee discarded the validity certificates as it was of the view that the aforesaid persons were not "blood relations" in terms of the G.R. dated 22.08.2007. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that no Research Officer was associated with the Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is without merit. It is further submitted that when validity certificates have been issued in favour of Bhagwan Narsing Zalte and Yogini Santoshmumar Rajput, the petitioner also should have been granted such a certificate as he had a common ancestor with the aforesaid two persons. The learned Advocate then submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has erred in taking into account the extract from the Birth and Death Register with respect to the petitioner’s great grandfather Chindha Khushal wherein his caste has been shown as "Rajput". He submits that the petitioner’s own school leaving certificate indicated that he was "Rajput Bhamta" and, therefore, he should have been granted the validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. The learned advocate points out that in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) the Supreme Court had very clearly laid down that a Research Officer must be associated with the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee and since in the present case this has not been done, the enquiry stands vitiated. 6. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav V/s Executive Magistrate & others reported in (2003(6) Bom.C.R.334) and on the decision in the case of Mahadeorao Shamrao Rajput V/s The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.4352/1984 which was decided by Division Bench of this Court on 23rd February, 1988 to submit that merely because the Caste of the petitioner’s great grandfather was recorded as "Rajput" it did not necessarily mean that the petitioner was not a "Rajput Bhamta". The other judgment cited by the learned Advocate is in the case of Umraosingh Jaisingh Chamargore V/s The Dean, Medical College, Aurangabad & others reported in (1999(1) Bom.C.R.810), to submit that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner once more to establish the tribe claim. 7. The learned Advocate has also relied on the judgment in the case of Jaydeo Mahadeo Parate V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2006(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 448) of the Division Bench of this court to which one of us (B.R.Gavai,J.) was a party to submit that he should be given benefit of the admission granted to him instead of canceling the same if we concurr with the findings of the Scrutiny Committee. 8. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) does not in any way advance the case of the petitioner. He submits that all the requirements of Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case as stipulated by the Supreme Court, have been considered while enacting the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. He submits that all the enquiries are now conducted by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance and in consonance with the aforesaid enactment. The learned Advocate points out that the Scrutiny Committee has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and, therefore, no interference is called for by this court in its writ jurisdiction. The learned Advocate then points out that each case of validation must be considered on its own merits and it was not necessary that because one of the members of the family had been granted a certificate of validation of the caste claim that the other members would automatically be entitled to the same. He submits that it is for the applicant to prove his caste claim rather than contending that he should be treated at par with the other members of his family. As regards the judgment in the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav V/s Executive Magistrate & others (supra), the learned Advocate submits that this judgment does not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Milind. As regards the judgment in the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav V/s Executive Magistrate & others (supra), the learned Advocate submits that this judgment does not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Milind. He further submits that when the Caste of the great grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as "Rajput", the petitioner could not claim that he was a "Rajput Bhamta". The document was pre 1960 i.e. when the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe became entitled to reservations. The document being of 1935, has a greater probative value according to the learned A.G.P. As regards the requirement of the association of the Research Officer along with the Scrutiny Committee, as held in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the learned Advocate submits that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the aforesaid Act and therefore, no fault could be found with the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee. 9. In the present case, the petitioner’s school leaving certificate indicates that his caste was "Hindu Bhamta Rajput". The petitioner’s cousins Bhagwan Narsing Zalte and Yogini Santoshkumar Rajput had obtained validity certificates indicating their Caste was "Rajput Bhamta". However, as seen from the genealogy produced by the petitioner, the relationship between the aforesaid two persons and the petitioner, is too distant for the Scrutiny Committee to have granted the Caste validity certificate to the petitioner on the basis of their certificates. Chimna was their common ancestor. He had two sons Vijaysingh and Khushalsingh. Bhagwan is from the lineage of Vijaysingh while Yogini and the petitioner are the descendants of Khushalsingh. Khushalsingh had two sons Mohan and Chindha. Yogini was the great granddaughter of Mohan who was the stepbrother of Chindha. The petitioner is the great grandson of Chindha. Thus, it is obvious that though they have a common ancestor, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit only because of the fact that these two persons had their Caste certificates validated. The petitioner’s relationship is too distant from both Bhagwan or Yogini. He must, therefore, prove independently that he is entitled to the validity certificate. 10. Thus, it is obvious that though they have a common ancestor, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit only because of the fact that these two persons had their Caste certificates validated. The petitioner’s relationship is too distant from both Bhagwan or Yogini. He must, therefore, prove independently that he is entitled to the validity certificate. 10. We have not been shown the reasons for which the certificates of validity were issued to these two persons by the Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he is also entitled to a validity certificate. In our view, therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly discarded the certificates issued in favour of Bhagwan and Yogini for being the basis on which the petitioner would be entitled to the Caste validity certificate. 11. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that the petitioner’s great grandfather i.e. Chindha’s birth extract indicates that his Caste was "Rajput". He points out that it was an old, pre Constitution document. He submits that the term "Bhamta" may have been excluded while recording the Caste of the petitioner’s great grandfather in the birth extract since it was a derogatory term. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Mahadeo Shamrao Rajput V/s The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.4352/1984). The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the case, where the petitioner claimed that he belonged to the "Rajput Bhamta" Caste has observed that "Bhamta" is a term of abuse and it was for this reason that the term "Bhamta" was not shown in the record of the Birth and Death Register. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is without any merit. It was only after the Presidential Order of 1960 that "Rajput Bhamta" tribe was conferred the status of a Scheduled Tribe entitled to the reservations. It was only after independence that it was felt that the word "Bhamta" should not be used as it was a term of abuse or in any case was derogatory. When the Caste of the petitioner’s great grandfather was recorded in 1935 there was no question of not including the word "Bhamta", if indeed, he did belong to the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe. When the Caste of the petitioner’s great grandfather was recorded in 1935 there was no question of not including the word "Bhamta", if indeed, he did belong to the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe. The petitioner’s school leaving certificate has been issued in 1999, indicating that he belongs to the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe. It is, therefore, quite possible that it was only in order to avail of the benefits of reservations that the petitioner’s Caste was shown as "Rajput Bhamta" instead of "Rajput". 12. In the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that rejecting a claim of the petitioner in that case that he belonged to the "Mahadeo Koli" tribe only on the ground that his father’s school record showed that he was a "Koli" and not "Mahadeo Koli" was unacceptable. It was held that the general description of the genus does not exclude any particular specie and, therefore, merely because the certificate described the petitioner’s ancestor as "Koli" it can not be presumed that they were not "Mahadeo Koli". We are afraid that it is not possible to accept this conclusion drawn by the Division Bench of this Court, in view of the later judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Besides, Kolis are classified as a Special Backward class while Mahadeo Kolis are a Scheduled Tribe. The judgment therefore appears to be per incuriam. 13. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the case of Jaydeo Mahadeo Parate V/s State of Maharashtra (supra) is concerned, we find that the same is misplaced. In the said case, this Court has considered the case of a person who was employed from the category reserved for Scheduled Tribes, claiming to be belonging to the "Halba" Tribe. In the said case, this Court has considered the case of a person who was employed from the category reserved for Scheduled Tribes, claiming to be belonging to the "Halba" Tribe. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts relating to position of "Halba Koshtis" in the Vidharbha Region, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Abhay Parate V/s State of Maharashtra reported in (1984 Mh.L.J.289) and the fact that the said controversy was put to rest by the Apex Court on 20th November, 2000 by a decision in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Milind (supra), and in view of the protection granted by the Apex Court in the said case, this Court has held that the services of the petitioner were entitled to be protected. This was because he was appointed much prior to the date of the said judgment delivered by the Apex Court. In any event, the Court had found in the said case that the petitioner has not played a fraud by producing a false certificate. In that view of the matter, we find that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In our view, the Scrutiny Committee has correctly held that the petitioner does not belong to the "Rajput Bhamta" tribe. The mere fact that the Research Officer was not associated with the Scrutiny Committee, would not invalidate their order. It cannot be doubted that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee must be up held. Cogent reasons have been given by the Committee for discarding the documents on which the petitioner relied for establishing his claim. He has also failed the affinity test. 15. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner’s admission should be protected, is also without any substance. In the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had made it clear by it’s order dated 26th August, 2008 in Writ Petition No.5077/2008 that the admission and the declaration of the result was provisional and subject to the issuance of the Caste validation certificate in favour of the petitioner. In the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had made it clear by it’s order dated 26th August, 2008 in Writ Petition No.5077/2008 that the admission and the declaration of the result was provisional and subject to the issuance of the Caste validation certificate in favour of the petitioner. In the present case, we are not impressed with the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he should be permitted to prosecute his studies in the Engineering Stream. The Court had made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim equities in case his caste claim was invalidated. 16. In the case of Union of India V/s Dattatray Namdeo Mendhekar & others reported in (2008(3) ALL M.R.441), the Supreme Court considered the effect of invalidation of the Caste certificate issued in favour of a person. The Supreme Court distinguished Milind’s case and observed that, "it did not apply to the appointments made on the posts of the wrong claims of the Caste tribe". The Supreme Court observed that in Milind’s case it had observed that since he had been admitted to the Medical Course in the Scheduled Tribes category 15 years prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, the seat could not have been offered to another deserving candidate even if the admission was to be annulled. The Supreme Court observed that public money had already been spent on the respondent in that case and, therefore, it would not be of any use to strip the respondent of his degree. 17. The petitioner, in the present case, had been admitted to the Engineering Stream and has completed only one year. His admission was provisional and the declaration of his result was also provisional. Thus, no equities have been created in his favour. In our view, the petitioner, having deprived a deserving candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category, should not be permitted to benefit from his wrong doing. 18. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No orders as to costs.