JUDGMENT : Sunil B. Shukre, J. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe but his claim has been invalidated by respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee by its order passed on 1st October, 2018. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law as well as perverse as it dishonours overwhelming evidence in the nature of pre-Constitutional documents showing social status of the forefathers of the petitioner as that of “Thakur" tribe and unduly gives importance to a few documents of the year 1960 showing entries of the paternal aunt of the petitioner as indicative of her "Kunbi" caste. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned order does not reflect, in any manner, upon affinity test. 5. Shri Balpande, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Panpalia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4, however, disagree. According to them the Vigilance Report giving all the details regarding social, cultural, anthropological traits and characteristics and traditions, have been considered properly by the Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner having failed to give any reasonable explanation about the contradictions in the important documents on which the petitioner has placed his reliance, the Scrutiny Committee rightly invalidated the claim of the petitioner. 6. No one has appeared for respondent No.3, though duly served. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that an appropriate order on merits of the matter may be passed. But according to him, if this petition is dismissed, the University would cancel the admission of the petitioner. 8. On going through the impugned order, we are of the view that it could neither be seen as perverse nor something which is utterly bad in law. To us, the impugned order, on a closer scrutiny, appears to have been passed after appropriate consideration of the Vigilance Report and the material placed before the Committee. It may be true that the impugned order is not worded properly, but that by itself could not be a ground for interfering with the order, if the order otherwise shows consideration of all the material and application of mind of the Committee to the material placed before it. It may be true that the impugned order is not worded properly, but that by itself could not be a ground for interfering with the order, if the order otherwise shows consideration of all the material and application of mind of the Committee to the material placed before it. As said by us, such a consideration and application of mind, both are seen in the present case. 9. It is true that there were many documents placed before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner indicating the caste and the social status of his forefathers to be that of "Thakur Community". Out of them, two documents at Sr. Nos. 15 and 16 showing the caste of the forefathers of the petitioner as "Thakur", were pre-constitutional. There were two other documents of the year 1960 and listed at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25, which showed caste of the paternal aunt of the petitioner as "Kunbi". There were other documents of the years 1966 and 1969 which showed caste of the paternal relations of the petitioner as that of "Thakur". All these documents are of the period prior to removal of area restrictions. The area restrictions were removed by Notification No.108 of 1976 dated 18th September, 1976 published in the Gazette of India on 20th September, 1976. 10. The petitioner and his relatives claim to be belonging to village Satefal situated in District Yawatmal. This place was not covered under the original order of the year 1951 which declares community "Thakur" to be a Scheduled Tribe which has been modified by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956. The Modified Order specified Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur and Ma Thakar to be the Scheduled Tribes in respect of only 25 talukas of the Districts of Ahmdnagar, Coloba, Nashik, Pune and Thane. Therefore, all those persons claiming the status of Thakur belonging to Yavatmal District, before removal of the area restrictions, were not entitled to get the same benefit and they became eligible to avail of the benefit only after the removal of the area restrictions. 11. Therefore, all those persons claiming the status of Thakur belonging to Yavatmal District, before removal of the area restrictions, were not entitled to get the same benefit and they became eligible to avail of the benefit only after the removal of the area restrictions. 11. In this background, even the documents of the years 1960, 1966 and 1969 assume great importance and in our view, would have the same status in terms of their evidentiary value, as the pre-constitutional documents particularly when the claim is made by persons hailing originally from places outside the talukas of those original five Districts, as per the 1956 Order. The reason being that before removal of area restrictions, there was no occasion for these persons to conceal the real caste and falsely claim a particular caste or tribe keeping an eye on the possible advantage attached to such claim, for no such advantage was available. Therefore, all the entries appearing in the documents of the period immediately preceding the date on which area restrictions were removed, they were removed on 18.09.1976, assume significance at least for those who claim to be always the original natives and not the migrant natives of the place which falls outside the 25 talukas of five districts for which initially the order was issued in 1956. 12. So consideration of all these documents is necessary. On their consideration, we find that they contain contradictions. One set of documents indicates that the relative of the petitioner to be belonging to "Kunbi" caste while the other set shows the other relatives of the petitioner to be belonging to "Thakur Caste". In such a case, a doubt would arise about the social status claimed by the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to remove the doubt by placing on record appropriate explanation as well as some evidence. But, on both the counts, the petitioner has failed. 13. The petitioner has given an explanation about the recording of entry "Kunbi" in the 1960 documents of his paternal aunt by claiming that this entry came to be recorded due to inadvertence. The explanation of inadvertence can always be accepted as reasonable, provided, some documents are placed on record by the petitioner showing that Dattatray Tukaram Thakur, the father of paternal aunt of the petitioner by name Chabutai Dattatray Marathe, was Thakur by caste. The explanation of inadvertence can always be accepted as reasonable, provided, some documents are placed on record by the petitioner showing that Dattatray Tukaram Thakur, the father of paternal aunt of the petitioner by name Chabutai Dattatray Marathe, was Thakur by caste. But, no such document nor any explanation has been placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that there are documents available on record which show caste of Tukaram Thakur, the father of Dattatray Thakur was "Thakur". These documents do exist on record. But the question is as to whether or not Dattatrey Thakur himself claimed to be of Thakur caste or of some other caste and no answer to this question has been provided by the petitioner. It is also not stated by the petitioner that Dattatrey Thakur never abandoned his original caste "Thakur" and therefore, there was no question of Chabutai Dattatrey Thakur claiming her caste to be Kunbi. In our view, the explanation so offered by the petitioner could not have been accepted and has been rightly rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. 14. There is another important aspect of the matter which, according to us, has been properly considered by the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has claimed his original place to be Satefal and has stated that his forefathers then migrated to Yavatmal. Satefal is a village admittedly situated in Yavatmal District. It is not a village situated in any of those 25 Talukas of 5 Districts and Coloba (present name Alibag), Pune, Thane, Ahmednager and Nashik. Petitioner does not say that his forefathers migrated to Satefal from any of those areas of 5 Districts or that his forefathers had some connection with any of those talukas in the said Districts. It is true that after removal of area restrictions, the place of residence has become wholly irrelevant. This is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. A useful reference in this regard may be made to the order Hon'ble of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2336/2011 Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. dated 8th March, 2017. The place of residence of the petitioner is Yavatmal and with the removal of area restrictions, such a place of residence would have no consequence for deciding the social status of a person like the petitioner. State of Maharashtra and Ors. dated 8th March, 2017. The place of residence of the petitioner is Yavatmal and with the removal of area restrictions, such a place of residence would have no consequence for deciding the social status of a person like the petitioner. But, the connection of a person like the petitioner who claims to be belonging to "Thakur, Scheduled Tribe" with any of the places situated in those 25 talukas, would be relevant. 15. It is not the case of the petitioner, and we have noted so earlier, that his forefathers in the distant past belonged to any of those 25 talukas and had migrated to Satefal, Tahsil Ner, District Yavatmal. The starting point of the petitioner or the origin of the petitioner, which is as per own case of the petitioner, is Satefal, Tahsil Ner, District Yavatmal and his place of residence is Yavatmal. We would say again, that the place of residence is not important but some connection with the place to which a particular tribe is endemic and earlier scheduled is important. This is for the reason that Schedule Tribes like "Thakur" were found only in a particular area of the State and as there was advancement in the means of transportation and communication and also increase in the job opportunities spread across the State, migration took place and recognizing this fact that the area restrictions, on the recommendations of Joint Committee of Parliament, were removed in the year 1976. Primarily the reason given by the Joint Committee was that the confining Scheduled Communities to some of the specified areas was causing difficulties to their members in the areas, where they were not so specified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dadaji @ Dina Vs. SukhdeoBabu and Ors, 1980 SCC 621 has dealt with this aspect of the matter. The relevant observations appear in paragraph 7 which reads thus:- "7. (1) The Joint Committee also recommended that the Mana sub-tribe referred to in the Bill should be excluded from the schedule to the Order altogether. Thereafter the matter was again considered by the Parliament. SukhdeoBabu and Ors, 1980 SCC 621 has dealt with this aspect of the matter. The relevant observations appear in paragraph 7 which reads thus:- "7. (1) The Joint Committee also recommended that the Mana sub-tribe referred to in the Bill should be excluded from the schedule to the Order altogether. Thereafter the matter was again considered by the Parliament. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, dated May 12, 1976 attached to the Bill, it was stated as follows: (2) Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders some communities have been specified as Scheduled Castes or as Scheduled Tribes only in certain areas of the State concerned and not in respect of the whole State. This has been causing difficulties to members of these communities in the areas where they have not been so specified. The present Bill generally seeks to remove these area restrictions. However, in cases where continuance of such restrictions were specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Bill, 1967, no change is being effected. The Committee had also recommended exclusion of certain communities from the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These exclusions are not being made at present and such communities are being retained in the lists with the present area restrictions. Such of the communities in respect of which the Joint Committee had recommended exclusion on the ground that they were not found in a State are, however, being excluded if there were no returns in respect of these communities in the censuses of 1961 and 1971....." With the removal of area restrictions, what happened was that the place of residence lost its relevance, but not the place where the claimants had their roots. Here is a case where the petitioner is claiming his roots only in Yavatmal District. This fact has been duly appreciated by the Scrutiny Committee and accordingly the Scrutiny Committee has found that the claim of the petitioner appears to be doubtful. 16. There is yet another fact which is important and needs our consideration. It is seen from the affidavit filed on record by the petitioner, which was also available for consideration by Scrutiny Committee, that previously surname of the petitioner was "Thakre" and it was only by notification published on 17th September, 1992 that he officially changed his surname to Marathe. There is yet another fact which is important and needs our consideration. It is seen from the affidavit filed on record by the petitioner, which was also available for consideration by Scrutiny Committee, that previously surname of the petitioner was "Thakre" and it was only by notification published on 17th September, 1992 that he officially changed his surname to Marathe. Petitioner's father had changed his name to "Marathe" in the year 1992. The petitioner has not given any reason as to why his father and he too changed their surname from "Thakre" to "Marathe". 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to give any explanation in regard to change of the surname as the petitioner was never put a single question on this aspect of the matter. It may be so. But, when the petitioner was relying upon the changed surname of his father, it was for the petitioner only to have provided the explanation about such change. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted and it is rejected accordingly. 18. The petitioner ought to have given his explanation about the change of surname by his father and himself, but the petitioner did not do so. The petitioner has also not stated anywhere that "Thakre" is a surname which is commonly found in "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. For this reason, we find no apparent error or any perversity in the impugned order and thus, we further find that the petition is devoid of any merit. 19. The petitioner is pursuing a 4-Year Nursing Course and as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already completed his 3rd year of the course. This statement is not disputed by Shri Panpaliya In such a situation, we would find that the education of the petitioner would require limited protection and to that extent only, we would allow this petition. 20. The petition stands dismissed on the substantive claim regarding the social status of the petitioner as he belonging to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe and to that extent, the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 01.10.2018 is upheld. 21. 20. The petition stands dismissed on the substantive claim regarding the social status of the petitioner as he belonging to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe and to that extent, the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 01.10.2018 is upheld. 21. As the petitioner has been through major part of the studies he is pursuing, we, in exercise of our extraordinary powers under writ jurisdiction via Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are inclined to show some latitude to the petitioner by giving him relief only to the extent of granting protection to the education of the petitioner and accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to allow the petitioner to complete his 4-Year nursing course subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the fees at the rate applicable to a seat from the General Category for the entire course of four years. The additional fees shall be paid by the petitioner within three months from the date of the order, failing which the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be at liberty to cancel the admission of the petitioner. 22. Rule accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.