JUDGMENT : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.J. Kadu, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to caste "Saitwal" which follows Jain religion and that as per the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2006, caste "Saitwal" of Jain religion has been included in the list of Other Backward Classes at Sr. No. 6 against the entry of 'Shimpi'. The claim of the petitioner, however, has been invalidated by respondent No. 2 - Committee by the order passed on 07.06.2018. The order was based upon a fractured opinion. In the opinion of one member of the Committee, sufficient documents have been placed on record by the petitioner which substantiated her caste claim while the Chairman and the Secretary of the Committee were of the view that there were not enough documents on record to convince them about the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. We have gone through the impugned order and documents placed on record by the petitioner. These documents are forming part of the paper book of this petition. The first document that has been relied upon by the petitioner is at page No. 136. It is a copy of the relevant page of the register showing that one Madhukar Keshavrao Bhagwatkar, belonging to 'Saitwal' caste had been admitted to School in 1951 and that he was born on 15.08.1940. The majority opinion has rejected this document on the ground that the relationship with the person "Madhukar Keshavrao Bhagwatkar" has not been established by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a family tree already placed before the Scrutiny Committee and as that has not been denied, the relationship must be taken to be established on record. The argument cannot be accepted. 4. On record of the Scrutiny Committee, there were two family trees filed by the petitioner. In the first family tree, there was no mention of the name of this person whereas in the second family tree, name of this person was specifically included. The argument cannot be accepted. 4. On record of the Scrutiny Committee, there were two family trees filed by the petitioner. In the first family tree, there was no mention of the name of this person whereas in the second family tree, name of this person was specifically included. In such circumstances, it was necessary for the petitioner to give convincing reasons as to how the first family tree furnished by her was incomplete and as to why the incomplete family tree was provided. That apart, no affidavits were filed before the Vigilance Officer to explain the relationship and it appears that Vigilance Officer was not informed about Madhukar Keshavrao Bhagwatkar being the great grand father of the petitioner and that the School entries made in the document at page No. 136 showed that this Madhukar Keshavrao Bhagwatkar was a person belonging to Saitwal caste. As such, the majority opinion has rightly rejected the document at page No. 136. 5. There are also other documents at page Nos. 138, 139 and 140 on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner. None of these documents disclose that the persons named therein belong to "Saitwal" caste. 6. Reliance has also been placed upon one more document which is at page No. 47. This document is a School Leaving Certificate issued to Ashokkumar Bhagwandas Bhagwatkar and it relates to a period from 11.08.1952 to 25.4.1953. This document discloses that Ashokkumar Bhagwandas Bhagwatkar's caste was Jain. Name of this person appears in both family trees submitted by the petitioner. Even if it is accepted that Ashokkumar Bhagwandas Bhagwatkar was indeed the grand father of the petitioner, as claimed by her, this document at page No. 47 would not help her in any manner. This document does not disclose Ashokkumar Bhagwandas Bhagwatkar as belonging to 'Saitwal' caste. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the caste 'Saitwal' had no significance earlier, the persons belonging to this caste, only disclosed their caste as 'Jain' and it is an admitted position that the caste 'Saitwal' is intrinsic to Jain religion and that is the reason why the State Backward Classes Commission recommended inclusion of 'Saitwal' caste of Jain religion in the list of Other Backward Classes, prepared by the State of Maharashtra. There is no reason for us to express any doubt about the recommendations made by the State Backward Classes Commission for inclusion of 'Saitwal' caste in the list prepared for the State of Maharashtra. But inclusion of such caste into the list of Other Backward Classes would not absolve the petitioner of her responsibility to show the bonafides of the concerned person in his failing to mention the caste in this document. This could have been done by her by producing on record relevant circumstances and more documents but she did not. 7. Caste is not equivalent to religion and religion is not a caste. So, a person of Jain religion claiming to be of 'Saitwal' caste would ordinarily mention that caste in a document which requires a statement on caste to be made and if he states that his caste is "Jain", which in fact is a religion, the necessary inference would be that he makes no claim of belonging to any caste and he believes only in his religious identity. If such a person later on makes a claim about his belonging to a certain caste, and if that happens upon noticing that a particular caste comes with newly added advantages, it would reasonably imply that the person has an eye on those advantages and thus lacks bonafides, unless some reasonable explanation is offered to explain the failure. Without such justification, the failure would only expose the falsity of the claim made by such a person. In this case, as said earlier, there is no such explanation. Therefore, we find no merit in the argument made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the voters list, which was prepared before the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2006 came into force. This voters list of the year 2005 contains, according to the petitioner, names of many persons who have been shown as belonging to 'Saitwal' caste and all these persons are the blood relatives of the petitioner from the paternal side. 9. We have gone through this voters list and we find that out of names of 12 persons mentioned therein as belonging to 'Saitwal' caste, at least two names i.e. Shashikant Ashokkumar Bhagwatkar and Avinash Ashokkumar Bhagwatkar have been shown as members of Bhagwatkar family in the first family tree submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. 9. We have gone through this voters list and we find that out of names of 12 persons mentioned therein as belonging to 'Saitwal' caste, at least two names i.e. Shashikant Ashokkumar Bhagwatkar and Avinash Ashokkumar Bhagwatkar have been shown as members of Bhagwatkar family in the first family tree submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. But, there is a doubt about the genuineness of the family tree itself as the petitioner is not sure as to which of the family trees is correct or complete or incomplete and no satisfactory explanation for removal of the doubt has been furnished by the petitioner. Then, the question arises as to whether the voters list by itself should be accepted as sufficient proof of the caste claim of the person. Answer to this question would necessarily be in the negative. After all, taking of entry regarding a caste of a person in the voters list depends upon several factors and it has to be known as to what documents were furnished to the authority in support of the caste claim and what opinion was formed by the authority in-charge of the voters list. Therefore, it would be necessary in such a case that the source of the entry is also revealed by the person. But in this, no such effort has been made by the petitioner. In fact, such an effort ought to have been made by her before the Vigilance Officer. But that has not been done. Therefore, no relevance whatsoever could be placed upon this voters list. 10. The impugned order shows that the minority opinion is based upon the only documentary proof available in the case. It is in the nature of aforesaid voters list and nothing else. The majority opinion has, however, considered the cumulative effect of the documents and the opinion is in consonance with the settled principles of law discussed earlier by us while examining various documents of the petition. 11. In the result, we find no merit in the petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.