JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J -Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 2. It is only judgment dated 10/4/2017 delivered in Writ Petition No.5119/2016 by this Court which induces us to remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. Otherwise, the sequence of events show that petitioner is only interested in keeping the litigation pending and somehow continuing in employment. 3. Petitioner claims that Manish son of Bansidhar Panchgam is her cousin and he has been given validity by this Court on 10/4/2017. 4. Petitioner has not supplied family tree which she may have furnished to Scrutiny Committee for its use. However, after validity secured by Manish, petition has been amended and a family tree demonstrating relationship with Manish has been produced as Annexure - B with petition. 5. In present matter, Scrutiny Committee has gone by report of vigilance cell. The vigilance authorities found three documents which are mentioned by Scrutiny Committee in paragraph no.6 of its order. In document at serial no.1 caste of paternal aunt of petitioner is recorded as "Telgu" on 27/9/1936. In document at serial no.3 caste of very same lady is again recorded as "Telgu" on 27/9/1939. In document at serial no.2 caste of another paternal aunt Lalita is recorded as "Telgu" on 21/10/1938. In document at serial no.4 caste of real cousin Kusum is recorded as "Telgu Shimpi" on 6/8/1948. This report of vigilance cell was served upon petitioner and petitioner has given her reply to it on 28/4/2004. Her reply contains only general comments. It does not deny relationship with the certificate holders mentionedor then their caste as noted. The petitioner has not contended before Scrutiny Committee that Telgu is not the caste and has also not claimed that Shimpi or Telgu Shimpi is not the caste/tribe. 6. It is in this backdrop for the first time because of findings of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manish the contention that Telgu is not a caste or it is only a language has been raised. We in this petition are not satisfied and as rightly pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that unless relationship of petitioner with Manish is established, judgment in Writ Petition No.5119/2016 cannot be used by petitioner. 7. In addition, learned Counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to oldest documents. We in this petition are not satisfied and as rightly pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that unless relationship of petitioner with Manish is established, judgment in Writ Petition No.5119/2016 cannot be used by petitioner. 7. In addition, learned Counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to oldest documents. In document mentioned by Scrutiny Committee at serial no.2, caste of one Ganganna Pochhaiyya is recorded as "Manewar" on 28/8/34. In document mentioned at serial no.9 by Scrutiny Committee caste of one Gangayya Pochhaiyya is recorded as "Manewar" on 30/11/31. 8. We find that vigilance cell did not notice anything wrong with these documents. These two documents are prior to the four documents in which caste is recorded as Telgu or Telgu Shimpi. If these two oldest documents were undisputed, question before this Court is, whether in the light of later four documents, these two documents could have been ignored. The Scrutiny Committee has not assigned any other reason for ignoring those documents. 9. Relative of petitioner, namely, Manish has not disclosed his relationship with present petitioner to Scrutiny Committee and hence, invalidation of caste claim of petitioner is not looked into by Scrutiny Committee when it invalidated caste claim of Manish also. Conversely petitioner has not pointed out invalidation of caste claim of Manish or then pending caste claim of Manish to Scrutiny Committee when her caste claim was verified. Petitioner is conveniently bringing before us her relationship with Manish after Manish is granted validity by the Scrutiny Committee. 10. We therefore find substance in contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that petitioner somehow is trying to claim to the post which she got as reserved category candidate. 11. However, in the light of judgment delivered by this Court on 10/4/2017 in Writ Petition No.5119/2016, impact of grant of validity to Manish on present matter needs to be evaluated by Scrutiny Committee. Vice versa, it also implies evaluation of effect of present adjudication on caste claim of Manish. 12. Only for that purpose, we grant petitioner one more opportunity with express caution and warning that petitioner shall not suppress any material or document from Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner shall file specific affidavit giving names of all relatives on maternal side as also paternal side and also on husband side expressly disclosing whether they have claimed status as "Manewar" Scheduled Tribe. Only for that purpose, we grant petitioner one more opportunity with express caution and warning that petitioner shall not suppress any material or document from Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner shall file specific affidavit giving names of all relatives on maternal side as also paternal side and also on husband side expressly disclosing whether they have claimed status as "Manewar" Scheduled Tribe. She shall also point out whether their claims have been validated or invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. This affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. 13. To see that petitioner understands seriousness of the issue and undertakes trial with full responsibility, we direct her employer respondent nos.3 and 4 to release 80% of her net salary every month for period from 1/4/2018 onwards. 14. To facilitate the exercise of re-verification by Scrutiny Committee, we quash and set aside the order dated 24/5/2004. We direct petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27/4/2018 and to comply with directions issued to her supra. 15. Petitioner shall not be entitled to claim balance salary or any terminal or other benefits if her caste claim is invalidated. However, if her caste claim is validated, balance 20% retained by employer shall be released to her within one month of such validation. 16. The Scrutiny Committee shall complete exercise and pass final orders on verification within eight months after 27/4/2018. 17. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.