JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Admit. Learned AGP waives service of notice of respondent. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The claim of the petitioner for Thakur - Scheduled Tribe which is an entry at Sr. No. 44 in the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950, has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 21.06.2019, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. All the documents produced by the petitioner which include the Birth Extract dated 01.02.1931 and the School Leaving Certificate dated 17.06.1938 in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner show the caste as 'Thakur'. As a matter of fact, on 19.04.2003, the Scrutiny Committee issued Caste Validity Certificate in the name of Bhagwan Dattatray Ingle, the father of the petitioner. The Police Vigilance Cell Report dated 17.05.2019 clearly discloses that the caste of the petitioner and his forefather is recorded as 'Thakur' and the validity and genuineness of none of the documents is doubted. The Police Vigilance Cell, however, holds that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity test. 4. The respondent Committee holds that the Validity Certificate issued in the name of the father of the petitioner on 19.04.2003 is not in the prescribed format. The Committee wanted the Validity Certificate in Form-G under the Rules of 2003. Undisputedly, the certificate was issued prior to coming into force of the said Rules and therefore, obviously it is not in the format prescribed under the Rules. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance upon certain decisions. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apurva Vinay Nichale vrs. Division Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 , covering controversy and it is held that if the caste validity certificate is already issued in the name of the father, then the son is entitled to issuance of the caste validity certificate. In case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2627 of 2010 on 08.03.2011, reported in 2018(5) ALL MR 975 (S.C.), it is held that the claim cannot be rejected on the basis of area restriction. In the decision of the Apex Court in Anand vrs. In case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2627 of 2010 on 08.03.2011, reported in 2018(5) ALL MR 975 (S.C.), it is held that the claim cannot be rejected on the basis of area restriction. In the decision of the Apex Court in Anand vrs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 : [2011(6) ALL MR 929 (S.C.)], the Apex Court has held that the affinity test is to be used as corroborative piece of evidence and the Scrutiny Committee has to perform the role of verification of the claim which can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the applicant and the claim cannot be rejected by gathering evidence by the Committee on its own to prove or disprove the claim. All the points are covered by the aforesaid decision. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the respondent -Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Committee is directed to immediately issue the caste validity certificate in the name of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur- Scheduled Tribe' which is an entry at Sr. No. 44 of the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The validity certificate be delivered to the petitioner positively on 01.07.2019, failing which strict action shall be taken against the Committee. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.