1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 919/2007 (Devanand Barapatre vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr P U Sonkusare / B M Lonare, Advocates for petitioner (absent) Mr P.D. Kothari AGP for Respondents 1 and 3 Mr P.B. Patil Adv.for R-2 CORAM: A .M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 12th June, 2008. *** 1. None appears for the petitioner. We find that Mr P U Sonkusare, Advocate has filed Leave Note. However, the petitioner is represented by Advocate B M Lonare as well, whose Vakalatnama is on record. There is nothing to indicate as to why the said Advocate/s is not appearing in the matter, when the matter is called out. The matter was moved in January 2007 and has been adjourned in the past on one more than one occasion. In fact, it has remained on Board since 10th June 2008. It was kept back on 10th June, 2008 as well as 11th June, 2008. 2. Today when the matter is called out, concerned Advocate on record has not chosen to appear nor deputed anyone to make a formal 2 request for keeping back the matter. In the circumstances, we would proceed to decide the petition with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Upon perusing the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and other related documents, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this Petition. We find force in the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner himself has relied on documents which indicate that his caste was “Koshti” and not “Halba” as such. The petitioner had relied on the affidavit of his father dated 7.1.1999 before the Scrutiny Committee. Reliance was also placed on entries in the admission register pertaining to relation of the petitioner, which indicate caste as “Koshti”. The petitioner however, claimed that he belongs to Halba community, which claim has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee and a positive finding recorded that he belongs to “Koshti” community. Having regard to this documentary evidence pressed into service by the petitioner himself, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he belongs to Halba which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we see no merits in this petition; hence the same deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. We may now refer to the alternate prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that even if the caste claim is to be rejected, his service as Mechanic in Govt Printing Press & Book Depot may be protected. This plea is taken particularly relying on the dictum in Milind Katware's case { 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.1} . However, recently we had an occasion to examine this aspect and that plea has been turned down in the order passed by the Bench, of which one of us was a party, in W.P. No 6636/2005 (Shri Shrikant vs. State) decided on 22nd April,2008 and Writ Petition No.2864/2007( Prabhakar Umredkar vs. State ) decided on 5th May 2008 and Writ Petition No. 6510/2006 ( Shivshankar vs. Scrutiny Committee) decided on 6th June 2008. 5. Even in the present case, as aforesaid, the petitioner sought employment in respect of reserved post on the assertion that he belongs to 'Halba'Scheduled Tribe, which claim has been found to be false as, in fact, the petitioner belongs to 'Koshti'community which is not part of 'Halba'tribe. It necessarily follows that the original claim of the petitioner was false to his knowledge, inasmuch as though he was aware that that he belongs to Koshti community applied for employment in respect of the post reserved for 'Halba' 4 Scheduled Tribe. In such a situation, the exposition of Apex Court in the latest decision in the case of Union of India vs. Dattatraya reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J . 720 would apply. Accordingly, there is no merit in the alternate relief claimed in this petition. Hence this petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare