Judgment :- (S.A. Bobde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged order of Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidating his caste claim belonging to Mana (Scheduled Tribe). Mr. Parsodkar, leaned counsel for the petitioner, points out that neither the petitioner nor his parents or guardian was examined by Vigilance Cell as contemplated in direction no. 5 in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another ..vs.. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors; AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1994. According to learned counsel, the petitioner’s wife was examined. 3. Ms. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee, fairly accepts the fact that the petitioner was not examined but his wife was examined since he was not there at home. She further states that the petitioner’s parents were not present so the petitioner’s parents, who are said to be no more, are also not examined. The learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner was examined by Scrutiny Committee itself after issuing notice to the petitioner for personal hearing. We find that there has not been a sufficient compliance of direction no. 5 laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). The Supreme Court has specifically directed that the Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors should to investigate into the social status claims. Their Lordships have further directed that the Vigilance Cell should personally verify and collect all facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or parent or guardian as the case may be and further examine the School records, birth register, if any. The direction that is relevant for the purpose of decision so far as the present case is concerned is that the Officer from the Vigilance Cell should also examine parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons, who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate. 4. Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the procedure adopted by the Vigilance Cell namely that of examining the petitioner’s wife as regards the social status and caste is not warranted by law. He submits that the petitioner’s wife in particular did not have sufficient knowledge about caste of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the procedure adopted by the Vigilance Cell namely that of examining the petitioner’s wife as regards the social status and caste is not warranted by law. He submits that the petitioner’s wife in particular did not have sufficient knowledge about caste of the petitioner. It is not possible to go into extent of knowledge, which a particular candidate’s wife is possessing in regard to caste of the candidate. However, the matter will have be decided on the basis of the rules. The State of Maharashtra has enacted rules known as the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “rules”) in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 18 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. Rule 12, which prescribes the procedure, reads as follows:- “12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee: (1) On receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committee or a person authorized by it shall scrutinize the application, verify the information and documents furnished by the applicant, and shall acknowledge the receipt of the application. The Member Secretary shall register the application, received for verification, in the register prescribed by the Chairman. (2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. (3) The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place of residence and original place from which the applicant hails and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the town or city or place from which he originally hailed from. (4) The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts about the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may be. (5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification of their Tribe, of the applicant. (6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turn scrutinize the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. (5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification of their Tribe, of the applicant. (6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turn scrutinize the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. (7) In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of the applicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate. The validity certificate shall be issued in Form G. (8) If the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the Vigilance Cell report and other documents available is not satisfied about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall issue a show cause notice to the applicant and also serve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer by registered post with acknowledgment due. A copy shall also be sent to the Head of the Department concerned, if necessary. The notice shall indicate that the representation or reply, if any, should be made within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice and in any case not more than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case the applicant requests for adjournment or extension of the time-limit, reasonable time may be granted. (9)(a) After personal hearing if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the claim, Validity Certificate shall be issued in Form G. (b) After personal hearing, if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim and correctness of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, it shall pass an order of cancellation and of confiscation of the Certificate and communicate the same to the Competent Authority for taking necessary entires in the register and for further necessary action. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate shall then be stamped as “cancelled and confiscated”. 5. It may be noted that sub rules (4) and (5), which govern the subject matter in hand, clearly stipulate that the Vigilance Officer shall verify and collect all facts about social status, which may be claimed by the applicant or his parents or guardian. Sub rule (5) in particular requires that the Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification. Sub rule (5) in particular requires that the Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification. The Rules do not contemplate that the wife and, in any case, the wife alone, should be examined by Vigilance Officer. The facts of the present case show that instead of examining the petitioner, who was said to be not at home when the Vigilance Officer visited the home, the Officer has merely examined the petitioner’s wife and has not made any subsequent attempt to examine the petitioner. We are of the view that for the purpose of verification of the claim of the candidate belonging to a particular tribe, the Vigilance Cell shall examine the parents or guardian or the applicant. The intention of the Rules is to insure that the claim is verified on the basis of information gathered from the members of that very family, to which the applicant belongs. It appears that the rules do not specify that the wife may be examined because in a given case, the wife may not belong to the community or tribe of the applicant and may not have the necessary knowledge. We are of the opinion that a wife may indeed be examined along with the parents or guardian or applicant for the purpose of verification of their tribe but it would not be sufficient compliance with the rules to examine only the wife particularly when the applicant or his parents may be available for examination. We have taken the view that a wife may be examined along with the applicant or parents in view of direction no. 5 in Madhuri Patil (supra), where the Supreme Court has stated that the Vigilance Officer should also examine the parents, guardian or candidate “or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate.” 6. In the circumstances, we find that the order is vitiated for non compliance of rule 12 of the Rules and is in breach thereof. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 15.07.2009 at 11.00 a.m. He shall strictly comply with directions of the Scrutiny Committee in relation to being examined by the Vigilance Cell. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 15.07.2009 at 11.00 a.m. He shall strictly comply with directions of the Scrutiny Committee in relation to being examined by the Vigilance Cell. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.