JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J. :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 11-5-2010 by which it invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner produced several documents set out in the order. The Committee thereafter directed the Vigilance Cell to submit a report of the petitioner's caste. The Vigilance Cell also collected and produced several documents which are set out in paragraph No. 3 of the order. The Committee recorded that the petitioner's request for associating Research Officer of the Police Vigilance Cell was acceded to by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner's mother's statement was recorded on the traits and characteristics of her caste. 4. Mr. S. R. Narnaware, learned Advocate for petitioner, submitted that the Vigilance Cell produced a xerox copy of the first page of the service-book of the petitioner's father issued by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC and the candidate had also submitted her father's service-book extract. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no reason why the Vigilance Cell and the Caste Scrutiny Committee overlooked examining her father. The learned Counsel also relied on sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 which reads as follows : "(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." We find that the order of the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated due to noncompliance of sub-rule (5) of Rule 12. The Rule requires the Vigilance Cell to examine the parents or guardians of the applicant. The word "parents" implies both the father and the mother. The need for examining the father as well as the mother cannot be undermined in a case of this nature. It is well-known that in a patriarchal society, caste is determined by the caste of the father. An enquiry into the candidate's caste can be best made by examining the father or others on the paternal side, such as uncles. We do not see how it is possible to produce a correct result in scrutiny without examining the father or such other relatives on the paternal side as are available. An enquiry into the candidate's caste can be best made by examining the father or others on the paternal side, such as uncles. We do not see how it is possible to produce a correct result in scrutiny without examining the father or such other relatives on the paternal side as are available. We accordingly hold that sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 which requires the Vigilance Cell to submit a report only after examining both the parents is mandatory. We, therefore, hold that the Vigilance Cell has acted contrary to the Rules in holding the enquiry and submitting the report. The order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee rests on such a report and is, therefore, vitiated. 5. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee with a direction that both the parents of the petitioner be examined by the Vigilance Cell and the Caste Scrutiny Committee should decide after considering the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell after such examination and pass a reasoned order. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.