The petitioner challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee, which invalidated her claim of belonging to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Despite presenting substantial documentary evidence and pointing to the validity certificates of close relatives, the Scrutiny Committee rejected her claim. The court found this rejection unsustainable, citing previous rulings and the unchallenged validity of the petitioner's relatives' certificates. Consequently, the court set aside the Scrutiny Committee's order and directed it to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.

1. Introduction and Procedural Background

   • Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in the Petition

   • The petitioner challenged the order dated 27/02/2024 by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating her claim of belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

3. Petitioner’s Caste Certificate

   • The petitioner secured a caste certificate on 27/12/2004 from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, certifying her belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, which facilitated her public employment.

4. Conditional Appointment

   • The petitioner’s appointment was subject to submission of a validity certificate.

5. Documentary Evidence Submitted

   • The petitioner provided various historical documents, including a birth extract from 1914, birth register entry from 1931, and school extract from 1938, all indicating the ‘Thakur’ entry for her ancestors. Additionally, a 1963 document listed ‘Thakur’ for her father.

6. Scrutiny Committee's Evaluation

   • The Scrutiny Committee noted the petitioner failed to establish her claim based on documentary evidence and the affinity test.

7. Petitioner’s Reliance on Family Tree and Relatives’ Validity Certificates

   • The petitioner’s counsel highlighted the family tree and the validity certificates of her relatives, including her uncle and cousins, all of whom were recognized as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

8. Court's Observation on Relatives’ Validity Certificates

   • The court noted that the Scrutiny Committee ignored these validity certificates without substantial reasons and cited a previous similar case where the committee's order was set aside.

9. Evidence of Blood Relations Holding Validity Certificates

   • The court inferred from the evidence that the petitioner's blood relatives hold valid certificates and cited a court declaration for her cousin, Shantanu Bhagwat Ingle.

10. Unquestioned Documentary Evidence

    • The Scrutiny Committee did not question the documents related to the validity certificates of the petitioner’s blood relatives.

11. Legal Precedent

    • The court referenced the Division Bench’s decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and ors., supporting the petitioner's claim.

12. Court's Conclusion

    • The court concluded that the Scrutiny Committee's order was unsustainable and should have considered the validity certificates of the petitioner’s blood relatives.

13. Court’s Order

    • The court set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order, declared the petitioner belongs to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the validity certificate within four weeks.

14. Final Disposition

    • Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.