determination, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) , to the facts of the present case, it is found that the procedure as laid down in the said decision has not been followed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, while proceeding to ascertain the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. The requisite study required to be carried out to ascertain the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, had not been carried out. It is seen that the enquiry required to be made at the field level to ascertain the claim made by a person to belong to a particular caste, is not seen to have been carried out in the matter. The speaking order dated 11-02-2021 reveals that the jurisdictional District Commissioner had given a report wherein it was highlighted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 belongs to the OBC community. The basis of the said report was not considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is a requirement in pursuance to the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) that the Vigilance Office is to personally verify and collect all facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent of guardian, as the case may be. He also being required to examine the school records, birth registration, if any and thereafter to examine the family members of the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the caste status of the person concerned and then to submit a report in the matter with all particulars relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage,
