JUDGMENT : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. The petitioner has raised a challenge to the order dated 12.7.2019, passed by respondent No. 1-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short, the “Scrutiny Committee”) thereby invalidating her caste claim that she belongs to ‘Kshatriya’ - Other Backward Class (for short “OBC”). 3. The petitioner is a student pursuing the course of Civil Engineering at respondent No. 2 College. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the Kshatriya caste, which is recognized as OBC at Serial No. 126 under Government Resolution (for short “GR”) dated 25.6.2008 and Notification dated 26.9.2008. On 3.9.2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal issued an OBC caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. 4. The Headmaster of Anglo Hindi High School and Junior College sent a proposal of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee for verification of her caste claim as ‘Kshatriya’ OBC. Accordingly, the Committee called upon the petitioner to tender documents in support of her claim. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner produced eleven documents. In some of the documents, the Scrutiny Committee noticed that the caste of her relatives is shown as Sindhi, and therefore, the Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the same. The Scrutiny Committee has referred her caste claim to Vigilance Cell for detailed enquiry pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001 and Rules 2003. 5. The Vigilance Cell conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report. In the said report, it is mentioned that it has inspected and verified the school record of Mr. Devaldas @ Devidas Kallumal the grandfather of the petitioner, and found that on 1.8.1950 Mr. Devaldas had been admitted to the school and his date of birth was mentioned as 01.04.1943. In the said record, his caste was mentioned as ‘Kshatriya’. Vigilance Cell has also observed that it has verified the sale deed dated 07.02.1967, wherein the petitioner’s grandfather and cousin's grandfather’s names were mentioned. Accordingly, the report was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Devaldas had been admitted to the school and his date of birth was mentioned as 01.04.1943. In the said record, his caste was mentioned as ‘Kshatriya’. Vigilance Cell has also observed that it has verified the sale deed dated 07.02.1967, wherein the petitioner’s grandfather and cousin's grandfather’s names were mentioned. Accordingly, the report was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Pursuant to the Vigilance Cell report, the petitioner was served with show cause notice by the Scrutiny Committee calling upon her explanation about the documents produced on record. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 29.8.2018 with her explanation. 7. The Scrutiny Committee considering the submissions made and evaluation of the documents placed on record, held that the petitioner failed to prove her caste claim that she belongs to ‘Kshatriya’ OBC and therefore has invalidated the claim of the petitioner. Hence, she has preferred this petition. 8. We have perused the impugned order. It seems that the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner mainly on the following three grounds: (i) The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient documentary proof to prove her claim that she belongs to the ‘Kshatriya’ OBC caste which is synonymous with “Patkar, Somvanshiya Sahastrajun Kshatriya” as mentioned in entry No. 126 of the order. (ii) Government Resolution dated 1.4.1987 has recognized only five castes from the Sindhi community (Jagiyasi, Jajak, Khati, Kuchria, and Sudharia). Which does not include the caste “Kshatriya.” (iii) The petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test regarding the cast ‘Kshatriya’ OBC. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.R. Gadhiya has vehemently argued that the petitioner in support of her claim has produced a school record dated 1.4.1943 of her grandfather Mr. Devaldas and the sale deed dated 07.02.1967 on record. The school record i.e. Leaving Certificate denotes that the grandfather of the petitioner belongs to the ‘Kshatriya’ caste. However, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the said document in its proper perspective and erred in discarding the said document. Secondly, he submitted that the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati had issued a ‘Validity Certificate’ in favour of her cousin brother Mr. Nitin Manoj Lalwani on 22.10.2014 and therefore, also the petitioner is entitled to her caste claim. However, the Scrutiny Committee has ignored the said documents and erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Secondly, he submitted that the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati had issued a ‘Validity Certificate’ in favour of her cousin brother Mr. Nitin Manoj Lalwani on 22.10.2014 and therefore, also the petitioner is entitled to her caste claim. However, the Scrutiny Committee has ignored the said documents and erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that this issue is covered by the order passed by this Court on 6.3.2020 in Writ Petition No. 1937/2019 and therefore he has urged for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 9. Per contra, learned Add. GP Ms. N.P. Mehta has strongly opposed the claim on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the documents on record to prove that she belongs to the ‘Kshatriya’ OBC Caste, rather the record shows that the petitioner belongs to the Sindhi caste. It is further argued that the Kshatriya caste mentioned in the document is distinct from the caste mentioned in the GR dated 25.6.2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test regarding the ‘Kshatriya’ caste and therefore, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is just and proper and no interference is required in it. 10. We have appreciated the submissions advanced by both sides. Perused the impugned order and documents on record. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Scrutiny Committee has considered entry “Kshatriya” as a sub-caste of “Patkar, Somvanshiya, Sahastrarjan Kshatriya” and therefore, recorded the findings that there is no sufficient evidence produced by the petitioner in support of her caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the petitioner has produced eleven documents in support of her claim, which includes the school leaving certificate of her grandfather. The second crucial document is the caste validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee Amravati in favour of her cousin brother Mr. Nitin Manoj Lalwani. 12. The Scrutiny Committee has not disputed the entry in respect of the school record of the grandfather of the petitioner which categorically shows that the date of birth of the grandfather is 01.04.1943 and he was admitted to the school on 01.08.1950. The second document is the school leaving Certificate of the father of the petitioner wherein his date of birth is shown as 02/08/1965. In both the documents, the caste of the grandfather and father of the petitioner is mentioned as ‘Kshatriya’. The second document is the school leaving Certificate of the father of the petitioner wherein his date of birth is shown as 02/08/1965. In both the documents, the caste of the grandfather and father of the petitioner is mentioned as ‘Kshatriya’. The Vigilance Cell inspected and verified both documents from the school record. Both documents are not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee or the Vigilance Cell, therefore there is no reason to discard said documents while determining the caste claim of the petitioner. 13. So far as the third document i.e. caste validity certificate issued in favour of Mr. Nitin by the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is concerned, which denotes that the said Scrutiny Committee after verifying the material produced before them, issued the said certificate declaring him that he belongs to the “Kshatriya” OBC caste. The said document is not controverted by respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee or the Vigilance Cell. However, respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee while dealing with the same has observed that Mr. Nitin Lalwani is in blood relation to the petitioner as cousin brother The Vigilance Cell in its report observed that in the pedigree the name of Ms. Simran is shown as the caste validity holder. However, the Committee has not taken into consideration the said documents/validity certificates. The Scrutiny Committee has not assigned any reason for non-consideration of the said documents when it was produced by the petitioner and the relationship of the petitioner with Mr. Nitin Lalwani was not disputed, in that case, based on the law laid down in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and Others, 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401, the Scrutiny Committee ought not to have refused the same status to the petitioner that she belongs to the ‘Kshatriya’ caste. Thus, it seems that the findings given by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the law laid down by this court in the case of Apoorva Nichale (Supra) as well as the facts on record. 14. As a result, it reveals that the Scrutiny Committee has not considered these documents in its proper perspective and erred in ignoring the said documents. 14. As a result, it reveals that the Scrutiny Committee has not considered these documents in its proper perspective and erred in ignoring the said documents. In fact, it was incumbent on the part of the Committee to consider those documents and give reasons for discarding the said documents, but the Committee without assigning any reason or finding ignored the said documents which are very much relevant to consider the caste claim of the petitioner. 15. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 Committee failed to deal with the documents of the year 1943 i.e. School Leaving Certificate of the grandfather of the petitioner as well as the issuance of a validity certificate in favour of the cousin brother of the petitioner-Mr. Nitin, by the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati. Respondent No. 1 has neither disputed nor denied the genuineness of those documents, therefore there is no reason to discard those documents. Had it been the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to claim her caste as ‘Kshatriya’ based on those documents then certainly respondent No. 1 would have dealt with the same. Thus, non11 dealing with those documents leads to drawing adverse inferences against respondent No. 1. 16. It is pertinent to note that the School Leaving Certificate of Mr. Devaldas is a pre-constitutional document, therefore, it has greater probative value than other documents. Besides, neither the Committee nor the Vigilance Cell has disputed the genuineness of the said document, therefore, there is no reason to ignore the same. 17. On perusal of the judgment in Writ Petition 1937/2019, it appears that a similar issue was raised in the said petition and after considering the Notification, GR and the catena of judgments of this Court as well the Hon’ble Apex Court the co-ordinate Bench has observed that Kshatriya is sub caste of Patkar, Somvanshiya, Sahastrarjun Kshatriya. The facts of the case in hand are squarely covered by the finding recorded in the said petition. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that as per GR dated 25.6.2008, the caste Kshatriya is shown as a sub-tribe. In fact, in the notification dated 26.9.2008, it is not shown as a sub-tribe of Patkar. The facts of the case in hand are squarely covered by the finding recorded in the said petition. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that as per GR dated 25.6.2008, the caste Kshatriya is shown as a sub-tribe. In fact, in the notification dated 26.9.2008, it is not shown as a sub-tribe of Patkar. Therefore, the finding given on the 1st and 2nd points by the Committee appears to be contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, and therefore, the said findings are liable to be quashed and set aside. Furthermore, in the said judgment, it is categorically held that “Even otherwise, the Sindhi community is not a caste but is recognized for its linguistic connotation. Therefore, the second reason for invalidating the claim is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.” Therefore, the said finding applies to the case at hand. Hence, it cannot be said that ‘Kshatriya’ is not included in an OBC caste in entry No. 126. 18. The third reason for invalidating the claim of the petitioner is based on the affinity test of the petitioner considering caste Kshatriya as synonyms to Patkar, Somvanshi, Sahastrarjun, Kshatriya. In view of the finding recorded above, that the caste Kshatriya is an independent entry in GR dated 25.6.2008 and Notification dated 26.9.2008, the basis of affinity test is illegal, and therefore, comparing traits of “Kshatriya” with Patkar, Somvanshiy, Sahastrarjun and Kshtriya was not permissible. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 and Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 7117 of 2019 has held that the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test. So also, an affinity test can never be conclusive. Besides, the affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant and therefore, the finding of the Committee on the said point seems contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and on that basis rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not proper. 19. To sum up the above discussion, it seems that the petitioner has relied upon the document dated 1.4.1943 a school record of her grandfather wherein his caste was mentioned as Kshatriya. 19. To sum up the above discussion, it seems that the petitioner has relied upon the document dated 1.4.1943 a school record of her grandfather wherein his caste was mentioned as Kshatriya. The said document is not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee or the Vigilance cell. The said document is of the pre-constitutional era and therefore, it has greater probative value. The second important document is the caste validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in favour of her cousin brother Mr. Nitin which denotes that he belongs to “Kshatriya” OBC and therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Apoorva Nichle (supra), the petitioner is entitled to claim the caste validity that she belongs to “Kshatriya” OBC caste. The said two documents fortify her claim that she belongs to the “Kshatriya” OBC caste. The said documents duly confirm that the petitioner belongs to the “Kshatriya” OBC caste. One document is an old document of the year 1943 and the second document is issued by the competent authority therefore, those documents can be safely relied upon for a grant of validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the findings given by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the documents on record as well as the ratio laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above. Therefore, those findings cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law, and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition in the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 12-07-2019, passed by respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) It is declared that the petitioner has proved that she belongs to the “Kshatriya” OBC caste. (iii) Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee shall issue a validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. (iv) On production of the validity certificate, respondent No. 2 shall not act on the letter dated 19.12.2020 i.e. Annexure ‘F’ and declare the results of the petitioner, if not declared. 20. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.