JUDGMENT : N.B. Suryawanshi, J. 1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:- i) By a writ of certiorari or by a suitable writ order or direction, quash and set aside the order dated 16.01.2020 at ANNEXURE-1 to the petition passed by the respondent Committee, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati. ii) It be declared that the petitioner belongs to Halbi Scheduled Tribe, which is an entry at Sr. No. 19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and direct the Respondent No. 1, the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, to issue Caste Validity Certificate in the name of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to Halbi Scheduled Tribe; The petitioner challenges the order of Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, dated 16/01/2020 by which the petitioner's caste claim belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated and the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal bearing R.C.No.5945/MRC-81/2011-2012/ Umerkhed, dated 04/06/2012 was cancelled and confiscated. 4. The petitioner is a student, who has completed B.E. Course from respondent No.2 - College and respondent No.3 - University, took admission on the basis of caste certificate on the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner was admitted, on the basis of undertaking to submit caste validity certificate. The petitioner gave final year examination and is waiting for result. The petitioner apprehends that due to non-submission of validity certificate, the result and degree of the petitioner are likely to be withheld by the respondent No.2 - College and respondent No.3 - University. The petitioner's caste claim was submitted to the respondent No.1 - Committee through Principal of respondent No.2 - College on 04/01/2014. The petitioner relied upon 14 documents in support of his claim. Vide order dated 20/08/2016, respondent No.1 cancelled the caste certificate dated 04/06/2012 of the petitioner holding that the caste certificate is not in proper format. The petitioner again approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad with a prayer to issue caste certificate in proper format. The request of the petitioner having been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner with five others filed Writ Petition No.5366/2018. The petitioner again approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad with a prayer to issue caste certificate in proper format. The request of the petitioner having been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner with five others filed Writ Petition No.5366/2018. This petition was allowed by order dated 07/03/2019, thereby quashing the impugned order of the Committee and with a direction to the Committee to verify the claims of the petitioners therein in accordance with law. After the remand, the Committee has again rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. The Committee did not find favour with the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner, it is held that the petitioner has failed in the Affinity Test and the Committee has further refused to rely upon the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father namely; Sanjay Rama Nandanwar. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order being perverse and unsustainable. He submits that the Committee had rejected the caste claim of the father of the petitioner, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5293/2013, the same is allowed by this Court by a well reasoned order dated 23/11/2017, thereby giving direction to the respondent No.1 - Committee to issue certificate of validity in favour of the father of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said decision, the certificate of validity was issued to the father of the petitioner. The Committee ought to have issued validity certificate in favour of the petitioner on that ground alone and the reasons assigned by the Committee for not relying on the father's validity certificate, are totally erroneous. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in his father's case i.e. in Writ Petition No.5293/2013. Further reliance is placed in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vrs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh. L. J. 401 to contend that once the caste claim of blood relative such as father is accepted, the Committee could not have refused the same status to the petitioner. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, supports the impugned order of the Committee stating that the Committee has assigned valid reasons while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, supports the impugned order of the Committee stating that the Committee has assigned valid reasons while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. The Committee has relied upon documents collected during the vigilance enquiry and has also observed that the petitioner failed in the Affinity Test. The vigilance enquiry has found old documents of the years 1933, 1939 and 1954 of the blood relative of the petitioner wherein their caste is recorded as 'Kosthi'. The father of the petitioner has suppressed relevant old documents from the Committee, hence the Committee has rightly refused to place reliance on the Validity Certificate issued in favour of father of petitioner. Therefore, the Committee was justified in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit and hence, the same may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 4. We have gone through the grounds raised in the writ petition, the documents placed on record, the Vigilance Cell Report and the impugned order of the Committee. 8. The decision in the case of petitioner's father - Sanjay Rama Nandanwar in Writ Petition No.5293/2013 is placed on record at Annexure-23 of the petition. This Court has taken into consideration the grounds of rejection of the caste claim of the father of the petitioner, which were almost similar as mentioned in the present impugned order and by a detailed Judgment, this Court came to the conclusion that the reasons assigned by the Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner's father, were unsustainable. Hence, the Committee was directed to issue validity certificate in his favour. The validity certificate issued by the respondent No.1 - Committee to the father of the petitioner is placed on record at Annexure-24. 9. The Committee, while discarding the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner, has relied upon the documents collected during vigilance cell enquiry i.e. entries of Pre-Independence period of 1933 and 1939 and Post-Independence period of 1954, wherein the caste of blood relations of the petitioner of grand-father - Kisan Damu Nandanwar and cousin grand-father - Rama Damu Nandanwar is recorded as 'Kosthi'. The Committee has stated that as the said entries are pre-independence period, they have greater evidentiary value. The Committee has stated that as the said entries are pre-independence period, they have greater evidentiary value. It is further observed that in the matter of petitioner's father, he relied upon old evidence of birth register entry dated 27/09/1927 of a son born to cousin grand-father - Damu Nawsu, was also examined by the then Vigilance Cell and the present Vigilance Cell. The Committee further placed reliance on the Vigilance Cell Report dated 04/12/2019 in the case of petitioner, wherein specific remarks were given that the school documents of petitioner's cousin grand-father - Kisan Damu Nandanwar and Rukmaji Damu Nandanwar are received. Their birth dates are recorded as 01/07/1921 and 01/07/1928 respectively. Therefore, there is difference in the entry of 27/01/1997 of birth extract and the birth date recorded in school record. Therefore, it is not established that the said evidence is of the family of the petitioner. These entries are suppressed from the Committee as well as from the Court and validity certificate is obtained by the father of the petitioner. Hence, the Committee has refused to rely upon the validity certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. 10. This Court, while allowing Writ Petition No.5293/2013, filed by the father of the petitioner challenging the rejection of his caste claim, this Court has observed thus:- "2. Before the said Committee, the petitioner produced total fifteen documents showing the caste of the petitioner and his paternal/blood relations as 'Halba' / 'Halbi' consistently from 14-11-1923 to 6-7-1977, and such is also the finding recorded by the Committee. Though the Committee conducted the home enquiry through the Police Vigilance Cell to find out the genuineness of these entries, the report is that all the entries show the caste as 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. There is no dispute that there is not even a single document on the record of the Committee containing the caste entry as 'Koshti' or 'Halba-Koshti' or 'Halbi-Koshti' or "Halba'/'Halbi' as a sub-caste of 'Koshti' " either in the name of the petitioner or any of his paternal/blood relations. 28. All the documents produced on record by the petitioner and those obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell show the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers as 'Halba'/'Halbi'. Some of these documents are of preconstitutional period, having probative value. 28. All the documents produced on record by the petitioner and those obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell show the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers as 'Halba'/'Halbi'. Some of these documents are of preconstitutional period, having probative value. There is not even a single document on the record of the Scrutiny Committee showing the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers other than 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. The assessment of evidentiary value of the documents produced on record, clearly establishes the caste of the petitioner as 'Halba' or 'Halbi'. The Committee was, therefore, required to look into the entry of 'Halba, Halbi' in the Scheduled Tribes Order and the entries contained in the documents. In our view, the entries completely matched and there was no scope left for the Committee either to make an enquiry or let in any evidence or to apply affinity test to show that the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers was other than, 'Halba' or 'Halbi' or synonym of 'Halba, Halbi', an entry at Serial No.19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 29. We have noted that there is not even a single document produced on record of the Committee containing the caste entry of the petitioner and his forefathers as 'Koshti' or 'Halba-Koshti' or 'Halbi-Koshti' or 'Halba/Halbi' as sub-caste of Koshti. ..................." In para 10, this Court held that the petitioner was not required to establish that his forefathers were residing in the places meant for tribals and the committee erred in applying the test of ordinary place of residence of the petitioner or his forefathers, to reject the claim. In spite of this in the impugned order, the committee has again held that the petitioner has failed to prove that his ancestors were residents of the places where ordinarily 'Halba' / 'Halbi' tribal resides. 11. Thus, the petition filed by the father of the petitioner was allowed on merits, after going through the record of the Scrutiny Committee and after hearing the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was directed to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the father of the petitioner, pursuant to which the caste validity certificate (Annexure-24) is issued to the father of the petitioner. In the light of that Judgment, the committee ought to have issued caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner without embarking upon any further enquiry. In the light of that Judgment, the committee ought to have issued caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner without embarking upon any further enquiry. This Judgment was binding on the committee and the committee was bound to follow this decision. What we find is that the committee has again embarked upon an enquiry as to the validity of the claim of the petitioner and has proceeded to invalidate it by assigning untenable and unjustifiable reasons. We deprecate this approach of the committee. The committee, in the impugned decision, has not found that any fraud was played by the father of the petitioner, on the basis of which caste certificate was issued to him. The committee could not have arrived at the finding that fraud was played, in the light of the Judgment passed in favour of father of the petitioner, which was the basis for issuance of caste certificate in his favour. In that view of the matter, the committee has committed serious illegality and procedural impropriety in again embarking upon an enquiry about the validity of the caste claim of the petitioner, which according to us, is a totally erroneous approach, which cannot be sustained. The committee has made a feeble attempt by recording a finding that there was suppression of facts on the part of father of the petitioner, as he has suppressed the school record of his cousin grand-father namely; Kisan Damu Nandanwar and Rukmaji Damu Nandanwar, wherein their birth dates are recorded as 01/07/1921 and 01/07/1928 respectively, which does not match with the old documents i.e. birth extract entry dated 27/09/1927, according to which, a son was born to Damu Nawsu - cousin grand-father of the petitioner, which was relied upon by the father of the petitioner. The committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the birth extract entry dated 27/01/1927 and the birth dates mentioned in the school record do not match. Hence, it is not clear that the said evidence is from the family of the petitioner. By suppressing these entries from the committee as well as from the Court, the father of the petitioner obtained validity certificate. The committee therefore refused to rely upon the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father. We are unable to accept this finding recorded by the committee. By suppressing these entries from the committee as well as from the Court, the father of the petitioner obtained validity certificate. The committee therefore refused to rely upon the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father. We are unable to accept this finding recorded by the committee. The committee, while coming to this conclusion, has conveniently ignored the vigilance cell report dated 04/12/2019 in the present case, which confirms that caste 'Halbi' was recorded in the birth extract entry dated 27/09/1927, as well as in the school record of cousin grand-father - Kisan Damu Nandanwar and Rukmaji Damu Nandanwar of the petitioner. The said finding of the committee appears to be recorded on surmises and conjectures, without there being any supporting material before the committee, the committee could not have arrived at the said finding. In view of the decision in petitioner's father, Sanjay Nandanwar's case and Validity Certificate issued in his favour, the documents placed on record before the committee and the Pre-Independence period entries of 'Halba'/'Halbi' caste in the documents of the blood relatives of the petitioner, the committee was duty bound to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. The Committee has misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that there was suppression of facts on the part of father of the petitioner. The said finding is therefore unsustainable in the facts and on the basis of material placed on record of the Committee. 12. In the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra), taking into consideration Government of Maharashtra Resolution, dated 22/08/2007, which directed that during the course of enquiry or scrutiny of a caste claim, it is seen that the caste claim of a blood relative such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed without insisting on any other proof. This Court held : "4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud. 7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it. 9. In the present case, we find that the committee has disbelieved the petitioner's caste that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving certificate of petitioner's father and noticing that the original caste written on it was 'Thakur' and that was subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat. The committee observed that the caste has been changed without complying with the procedure prescribed by section 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact, the caste has been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From the findings of the committee it appears that the committee has observed that the change of caste has been done illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant validity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner." This decision in Apoorva's case is being consistently followed by various Benches of this Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations and considering the facts of this case, the committee was not justified in taking different view, in the case of petitioner, since the father of the petitioner was issued caste validity certificate by the same committee, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.5293/2013. There was also no question of the certificate obtained by father of the petitioner by fraud. The decision in that writ petition is binding on the committee and the committee has committed an error in initiating and / or embarking upon a fresh enquiry about the caste claim of the petitioner. In view of the fact that father was issued caste validity certificate, there cannot be a different caste of father and son i.e. the petitioner. 14. In the case of Sachinkumar Vasantrao Wankhede Vrs. In view of the fact that father was issued caste validity certificate, there cannot be a different caste of father and son i.e. the petitioner. 14. In the case of Sachinkumar Vasantrao Wankhede Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 323 , this Court at Aurangabad Bench observed that, "in spite of the directions and strictures, the Scrutiny Committees are finding some or the other novel reasons to reject the caste (tribe) claim of the claimants". That was also a case wherein, in spite of there being caste validity certificate granted to the real brother of the petitioner therein, the petitioner's caste claim was rejected by the committee. It was also observed that the committee is expected to take proper and legal approach and to read various pronouncements of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then better approach may be expected by the committee and the committee would do its job as expected by the Constitution of India, the Act under which the committees are established for the benefit of those persons for whom they have been established. These observations are applicable to the facts of the present case. If the committee had read Apoorva's case, the committee would not have initiated fresh enquiry into the validity of the caste claim of the petitioner. 15. In the light of above, we find that the conclusions drawn by the committee while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner are perverse and the approach of the Committee is erroneous. The committee has not come to the conclusion that there was any fraud played by the father of the petitioner while obtaining the validity certificate rather the committee could not have come to the conclusion of fraud in the teeth of Judgment in Writ Petition No.5293/2013. No steps whatsoever have been taken by the committee to get the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner cancelled. The decision in Writ Petition No.5293/2013 was binding on the committee and the committee in view of Government Resolution and the decision in Apoorva's case (supra) ought to have issued validity certificate in favour of the petitioner, without unnecessarily embarking upon a fresh enquiry in petitioner's case. 16. The decision in Writ Petition No.5293/2013 was binding on the committee and the committee in view of Government Resolution and the decision in Apoorva's case (supra) ought to have issued validity certificate in favour of the petitioner, without unnecessarily embarking upon a fresh enquiry in petitioner's case. 16. In the light of aforestated reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the committee is unsustainable and the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:- ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii). II. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall confer the Bachelor of Engineering Degree on the petitioner in accordance with his performance in the examination. III. Necessary steps be taken within a period of six weeks. 17. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.