JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J.:- This Court had issued notice official disposal returnable on 9th April, 2010. 2. This application for review is opposed by respondent No.2 as well by respondent No.3 by filing their respective affidavits. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S. R. Narnaware for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. S. S. Doifode for respondent No.1. learned Adv. Mr. S. M. Puranik for respondent No.3 and learned Adv. Mr. Abhay Sambre for respondent No.3. 4. The grounds, which are put forth on which review is sought, are narrated in paras 1 to 9 of the Review Application, which are summarized as follows :- [a] Summary of point raised in Paras 1, 3 & 9 :- The Appointment Order did not indicate that the applicant-petitioner was appointed on a post reserved for a tribal candidate. Though applicant's tri be claim was invalidated, her employment was liable to be protected in view of judgment in case of Milind Katware and many similar cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. [b] Summary of point raised in Paras 4 & .8.:- Shri. K. M. Pathak. Member of Scrutiny Committee, holds qualification of B.Com., and Master of Social Work. He does not hold Master's degree in Sociology or Anthropology which are the qualifications prescribed in Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998. Hence he is not qualified to act as a Research Officer or to work as a Member of Scrutiny Committee. [c] Summary of point raised in Paras 5 & 6: The Govt., directives contained in Govt. Resolution dated 5th July, 2006 are not followed. [d] Summary of point raised in Para 7: In Writ Petition No.2527 of 2009. this Court has set aside constitution of Committee, as it was in violation of directions contained in Madhuri Patil' s case. 5. Apart from the points raised in the body of application, the applicant has filed Civil Application No.451 of 2010 for production of documents on record. By this application, the applicant wants to bring on record a fact that Senior Research Officer - Shri. V. C. Patil holds qualifications of B.Com., and Master of Social Work, and has joined the Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur on 17th June. 2009. It is thereby suggested that Mr. V. C. Patil does not hold the qualification of M.A. in Anthropology or Sociology. It is alleged that the educational qualification of said Mr. 2009. It is thereby suggested that Mr. V. C. Patil does not hold the qualification of M.A. in Anthropology or Sociology. It is alleged that the educational qualification of said Mr. Patil is not in conformity with the Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998. 6. Learned Adv., also relies upon the reply received by the President of Adiwasi Koli Employees' Union, Maharashtra State,Akola. which is dated 3rd June, 2009 [Annexure-12]. It is stated in this letter that in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment in case of Madhuri Patil. directions are issued to appoint members of Scrutiny Committee and Research Officers who are well acquainted with the background regarding anthropology and having knowledge about the tribes. 7. Learned Adv. Mr. Narnaware did not press during oral submissions, or otherwise persuaded this Court on any other point. except the point relating to lack of qualification of Mr. K. M. Pathak and Mr. V. C. Patil. 8. Based on the averments referred to in Paras 4 to 6, during oral submissions, learned Adv. Mr. Narnaware has argued following points : [a] A pleading that Mr. K. M. Pathak does not possess requisite qualification to act as a Research Officer, was incorporated in the Writ Petition. however, this point has not been discussed and ruled upon in the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.5008 of 2009. [b] As Shri. K. M. Pathak was associated with the Committee, the decision and Judgment delivered by the Committee is nullity being in violation of the directions contained in Madhuri Patil's Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. [c] Similarly. as Mr. V. C. Patil does not hold requisite qualification, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is void. 9. While arguing the point of lack of eligibility of Mr. K. M. Pathak. learned Advocate Mr. Narnaware has placed reliance on : [a] The heading of the Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998 [Annex.3 to Review Application}. [b] Observations contained in the reported judgment of this Court [Coram: Kshitij R. Vyas, C.J. and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.] in case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Seva MandaI Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006(4) Mh.LJ.521]. 10. In order to urge that the Members of Scrutiny Committee should possess a qualification of Master's Degree in Anthropology and/or Sociology. indirectly, reliance was placed by learned Adv.. for applicant on the reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kum. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006(4) Mh.LJ.521]. 10. In order to urge that the Members of Scrutiny Committee should possess a qualification of Master's Degree in Anthropology and/or Sociology. indirectly, reliance was placed by learned Adv.. for applicant on the reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kum. Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [ AIR 1995 SC 94 ]. Analysis of Submissions Aspect of Rules as to Qualifications 11. The heading of Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998 which is very heavily relied upon, reads as follows **iq.ks ukf”kd o ukxiwj ;sFkhy vuqlwfpr tekurh tkrh izek.kizr rikluh lfeR;kaP;k varZxr dk;Zrj vlysy;k n{krk iFkdkrhy iksyhl fufj{kdkph izR;sdh 2 ins lefrZr d:u R;k,aoth 2 la”kks/ku vf/kdkjh ;kaph ¼ekuoa”k”kkL=½ fdaok lekt”k”kkL= fdaok lekt”kkL=”khy inO;qRrj inoh/kkjd½ ins fuekZ.k dj.ksckcr-** [Quoted from page no.42 of the paper-book of Review Application]. 12. In the heading of the said Govt. Resolution, it is suggested that the educational qualifications for the post of Research Officer to be associated with the Vigilance Cell could be a Post-graduate in Anthropology or Sociology. In the body of the said Govt. Resolution. any policy decision is not proclaimed. Any directions as regards minimum educational qualifications are not given: 13. This Court has perused the reported Judgment in case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Seva Mandai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006(4) Mh.LJ. 52]] [cited supra]. It is seen that this Court has not given any direction in the said reported judgment for prescribing M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology as essential qualification for appointment to the posts in the Scrutiny Committee. Thus, this Judgment reveals that it does not support the contention of the petitioner raised in this petition. 14. This Court has given anxious and keen consideration to Applicant's reliance on the Judgment in Madhuri Patil's case. This Court has. therefore, re-scrutinized the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid given first Madhuri Patil's case. Though the directions are well-known. it would be necessary for the sake of adjudication in the present case to refer them by quotation to leave no room for ambiguity. which are as follows:- "12. ........................For that purpose. it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates. their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the follows: "1……………….." "2……………….." "3……………….." 4. which are as follows:- "12. ........................For that purpose. it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates. their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the follows: "1……………….." "2……………….." "3……………….." 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers. namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department. (II) the Director. Social Welfare/tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare. as the case may. and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes. the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities. parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian. as the case may be. He also should examine the school records. birth registration, if any. He should also examine the 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 and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular. of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc." [Quoted from page no.103 of AIR 1995 (Vol.82) Supreme Court. Underlining is done to highlight relevant and important portions ]. 15. It is seen from later order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Kum. Madhuri Patkil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. [ (1997)5 SCC 437 ], that in this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not in any manner. Underlining is done to highlight relevant and important portions ]. 15. It is seen from later order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Kum. Madhuri Patkil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. [ (1997)5 SCC 437 ], that in this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not in any manner. alter the directions as regards constitution and manning of the Committees. What seems to be a slight addition is paragraph 5 of the said order. which reads as follows :" 5. With regard to prayer (d), along with the Vigilance Cell, one Research Officer/tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers." [Quoted from page no.438 of (1997)5 SCC 473 ]. 16. All that is required by virtue of directions in Madhuri Patil' s case [cited supra] is that the Scrutiny Committee should be associated with those who have "knowledge of anthropological traits of the tribes". STATUTE GOVERNING CONSTITUTION OF SCRUTINY COMMITI'EE 17. After enactment of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis). Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act. 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001). now the constitution of Committees is governed by a statutory enactment of State Legislature. 18. Section 6 of the said Act provides for constitution of Scrutiny Committees. The Act or the Rules framed thereunder, namely the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. do not prescribe the qualifications of the Members of the Scrutiny Committee. ON FACTS AS TO CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE 19. It is seen that the coram of the Committee is described in its decision as follows: "CORAM: V. S. Patil, Vice Chairman Smt. V. P. Naik, Member-Secretary V. C. Patil. Member K. M. Pathak. Member." [Quoted from page no.28 of the paper-book of Writ Petition No.5008 of 2009]. 20. It is also seen that the Scrutiny Committee comprises of four persons. amongst whom one is the Vice-Chairman, one Member-Secretary who are Ex-officio Members by virtue of their status in the Department concerned, and the other two are its members. 21. It is not pleaded or otherwise shown. nor it is now shown that these tow Members do not have knowledge of the field. 22. amongst whom one is the Vice-Chairman, one Member-Secretary who are Ex-officio Members by virtue of their status in the Department concerned, and the other two are its members. 21. It is not pleaded or otherwise shown. nor it is now shown that these tow Members do not have knowledge of the field. 22. The petition does not contain a pleading that other three Members of the Committee do not have knowledge of the anthropological traits of tribes. 23. Learned Advocate Mr. Narnaware. however, is not in a position to demonstrate that as on this date, specific qualifications are prescribed as statutory as to recruitment. 24. Admittedly, the Govt. Resolution, however, does not prescribe any such condition, and only postulates that the Recruitment Rules be framed appropriately and as expeditiously as possible. 25. This Court finds that the educational qualifications of a Research Officer to be attached to Vigilance Cell and associated with Scrutiny' Committee have not been prescribed by law or Executive directions. 26. Even according to the applicant. Draft Rules seen as Annexure to Civil Application No.711 of 2010 have not yet come into force. 27. In this background of what is discussed in foregoing paras. an analogy emerges that the constitution of Scrutiny Committees has been done on the basis of first Madhuri Patil's judgment. The qualifications and experience of the personnel in the rank and cadre as stood on the date of said judgment have to be construed to be adequate, good and valid. as saved by necessary implication. 28. It was, and is open to the State Govt. to legislate as regards the qualifications of Members of Scrutiny Committee in conformity with Madhuri Patil's case. which appears to be in process. and has yet to culminate into finality. 29. Unless and until it is shown that the Committee is not constituted in accordance with law, it is not open to anybody to challenge constitution of Committee on the ground of lack of qualification so long its constitution conforms to the dictum in Madhuri Patil's case. AS REGARDS OUALIFICA TIONS OF MR. V. C.PATIL 30. No objection. whatsoever. was raised in the Writ Petition as regards qualification of Shri. V. C. Patil. In present Review Application, point as regards qualifications of Mr. V. C. Patil has been suggestively raised, stating that his qualification is M.S.W., and he does not possess Master's Degree in Sociology or Anthropology. Mr. V. C.PATIL 30. No objection. whatsoever. was raised in the Writ Petition as regards qualification of Shri. V. C. Patil. In present Review Application, point as regards qualifications of Mr. V. C. Patil has been suggestively raised, stating that his qualification is M.S.W., and he does not possess Master's Degree in Sociology or Anthropology. Mr. Patil is already working as Senior Research Officer. Moreover, in the Draft Recruitment Rules, Master's Degree in Social Science is seen to be one amongst the qualifications. 31. On facts, it is not averred that these two Members do not have expertise and experience in the field of scrutiny of anthropological traits of Tribals. MERITS OF PETITIONER'S TRIBE CLAIM 32. During hearing of Writ Petition, the record of the Scrutiny Committee was called, and in that background, this Court and dealt with the merits of the tribe claim of the petitioner. 33. It is seen from the Judgment sought to be reviewed that : [a] This Court had dealt with the information, namely family traits, occupation etc., furnished by the petitioner in the detailed information required to be given to the Committee. [b] The Scrutiny Committee had dealt with the family traits, mother tongue. traditions and all aspects which are essential for adjudication of the tribe claim of the petitioner and these aspects have been scrutinized and dealt with by this Court in Para Nos.9 to 28 of the Judgment. [c] The Scrutiny Committee was equipped with the report of Vigilance Cell, who was associated with a Research Officer. 34. In this Review Application, no challenge is urged or pressed as far as the adjudication of status of the petitioner as a Tribal is concerned. CONCLUSION 35. Moreover, the Review Application does not contain any challenge as to legality of decision of Committee on merits on the ground of error. 36. This Court is, therefore, convinced that applicant has failed to demonstrate any error, whatsoever, apparent on the face of record. 37. In the result, Review Application has no merit, and is rejected. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs. Revision dismissed.