Judgment : S.A. Bobde, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner was admitted to B.E. in CAP Round, which is held after the admission as an OBC candidate. In the course of validityproceedings, the Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 19.10.2011 invalidated his claim as belonging to LevaPatidar caste, which is an OBC community in the State of Maharashtra, entitled to reservation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, he belongs to LevaPatidar community, which is admittedly notified as OBC in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner contends that the committee did not properly appreciate the certificate produced by him in respect of his paternal aunt-Meenaben Jashbhai Patel in which, the caste is mentioned as LevaPatidar. According to the learned counsel, due weightage ought to have been given to this certificate. It might have been possible to consider the contention but for the fact that the petitioner’s own father’s caste certificate shows the caste as “Patidar” which is admittedly not an OBC community. The petitioner did not file any other certificate. In the circumstances, the Committee cannot be said to have committed any error in relying on the petitioner’s father’s Caste Certificate as “Patidar” for coming to the conclusion that he belongs to the OBC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that even if the petitioner’s caste claim as belonging to OBC is invalidated, he can be treated as having been admitted as open category candidate in view of the fact that he was granted admission to the course in CAP Round IV. Under CAP Round IV, the candidates who are admitted, must be taken to have been admitted not on the basis of any reservation but as a General Candidate. The clause, which provides for admission in CAP Round IV reads as follows : “7.1.2. CAP Round IVAdmission by Centralized Counseling: CAP Round-IV of admission will be conducted only for eligible Maharashtra State Candidates whose names have appeared in Maharashtra State Merit list (subject to eligibility of participation as set out in the Annexure-I). The clause, which provides for admission in CAP Round IV reads as follows : “7.1.2. CAP Round IVAdmission by Centralized Counseling: CAP Round-IV of admission will be conducted only for eligible Maharashtra State Candidates whose names have appeared in Maharashtra State Merit list (subject to eligibility of participation as set out in the Annexure-I). During this round of admission by Counseling, no seat tag will be applied i.e. seats available shall be treated as GENERAL seats and shall be allotted solely on the basis of interse merit of eligible MS candidates without any reference whatsoever to the category of the candidate(s) (open/reserved) or the category to which the vacant seat belongs (such as Home University, other than Home University, Backward Class, Physically Handicapped etc) and also all the vacant AIEEE Seats shall be treated as GENERAL seat and will be offered to MS candidates from Maharashtra State Merit list as stated above. The number of the seats, type of seat tag etc. will be made available on website to the eligible candidates before filing up of the option forms for CAP round I, II and III.” 4. We find from the Rules that the candidates are considered for admission in this round for admission as General only at the time of counseling and for the purposes of allotment of the vacant seats along with the corresponding provision that the category of a candidate’s vacant seat will also be considered as a general seat irrespective of whether the seat became vacant on the ground that the vacancy is caused either by an open category candidate or by a reserved category candidate. In other words, the vacant seat is considered as a general seat and the candidate is also considered as a general or open candidate. This fiction cannot be extended backward for wiping out the category in which the candidate has claimed admission. Moreover, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the University, points out from the General Notes of the prospectus that, “All reserved (emphasis supplied) category candidates (including SBC in their original category) shall be considered for allotment (whether they are allotted any seat in earlier stage or not) in all stages.” Thus, there is a clear indication that a the candidate retains his basic character. In the circumstances, we see no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.