JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally Shri C.A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional GP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has entered employment on 01.03.2012 as a person belonging to 'Kunbi OBC'. His employer respondent No. 3 forwarded caste claim for verification to respondent No. 2 – Committee. The Committee discarded the document dated 21.04.1913 which mentions caste as 'Kunbi', on the ground that the castes as such have come into existence after 1920. The Committee has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagannath D. Hole vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2006 (1) AIR Bom. R. 365, for said purpose. 3. Shri Joshi, learned counsel is relying upon the order of the Committee as also Vigilance Cell report to urge that old documents in which caste is recorded as “Kunbi” on 21.04.1913 and 18.09.1913 as also 31.12.1959 are not found to be interpolated or tampered with. He states that the Division Bench judgment has been wrongly understood and the order of invalidation, therefore, shows total non-application of mind. 4. The learned Additional GP submits that the Division Bench has then looked into history and found that castes as such have been recorded after 1920. Before 1920 mostly occupations were recorded. It is further submitted that in most of the documents after 1920, in column meant for caste word “Deshmukh” appears. Even in relation to 31.12.1959 document, Scrutiny Committee has found use of different ink in different handwriting while recording caste as “Kunbi”. He, therefore, states that a possible view has been reached by the Scrutiny Committee. 5. A perusal of Vigilance Cell report shows that it has looked into total four documents. In document dated 21.04.1913 and 18.09.1913, the caste is found recorded as “Kunbi”. There is no interpolation noticed by the Vigilance Cell in these documents. Insofar as document of School admission in relation to the father of the petitioner is concerned, there on 31.12.1959 though caste is mentioned as 'Kunbi', vigilance authorities have noted that said word was in different ink and handwriting. The Committee or Vigilance Cell do not mention that earlier there was some other caste recorded and it has been scored off. Hence, mere use of different ink or entry in different handwriting does not indicate any tampering or interpolation. The Committee or Vigilance Cell do not mention that earlier there was some other caste recorded and it has been scored off. Hence, mere use of different ink or entry in different handwriting does not indicate any tampering or interpolation. 6. The Division Bench judgment looked into by the Scrutiny Committee in the case of Jagannath D. Hole vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra) clearly shows in paragraph 12 a finding that in Birth registers looked into by the Division Bench prior to 1920, castes were recorded on the basis of occupation. After 1920, caste has been recorded correctly. In facts before the said Division Bench, before 1920 in column for recording caste, word “Maratha” was used and after 1920 the caste was recorded as 'Kunbi'. The observations made are, therefore, in relation to Birth register looked into by the Division bench. It does not lay down general principle. 7. In the matters where the documents are to be appreciated, such general practice or principle cannot be of any relevance. The inference is to be drawn after appreciating each document and hence that interference cannot be based upon any such observation. Here, even if before 1920, caste has been found as 'Kunbi' at least in two documents, the Committee could have looked into the relevant registers and then recorded a similar finding i.e. in those registers also before 1920 instead of mentioning caste, occupation was being recorded. That is not the finding of the Committee. The Committee, on the other hand, finds that after 1920, the word “Deshmukh” has been mentioned in column where caste should have been recorded. The Committee has not recorded anywhere that caste by name “Deshmukh” existed or exists. The Committee also does not hold that “Kunbi” was an occupation prior to 1920. 8. We, therefore, find that the reasons given by the Committee to discard the documents dated 21.04.1913 and 18.09.1913 unsustainable. The Committee ought to have accepted those documents and issued validity to the petitioner as 'Kunbi' – OBC. Hence, we quash and set aside the order of the Committee dated 06.03.2017 and direct the Committee to issue validity to the petitioner as 'Kunbi – OBC'. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.