1 wp2145.07 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2145 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 7th July, 2011 Shri A. S. Bayas Advocate, for the petitioner. ShriN.B. Patil , A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5. Shri R.P. Phatke, , Advocate for Respondent No. 2. --------- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for an order to set aside the decision of the Scrutiny Committee i.e. Respondent No. 2, passed on 31.12.2005. By that decision, the Committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. 2 wp2145.07 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. He weas employed as Wireman Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Vaijapur, since 1999. After his appointment, his caste certificate was sent for validation, to the scrutiny committee. While the petitioner's claim was pending before the committee, he was transferred on 8.6.2005 to Taluka Bhoom, in Osmanabad District. 3. The Scrutiny committee had issued notice to the petitioner, dated 20.9.2005, directing him to be present on 30.9.2005 before the Committee. That notice was received by the petitioner on 30.9.2005 i.e. on the same day that he was required to be present before the Committee. Therefore, it was not possible for him to attend the hearing on that day before the Committee. The petitioner informed the Committee, accordingly, and also mentioned that his address had changed on account of his transfer to 3 wp2145.07 Bhoom. The petitioner furnished his new address to the Committee. According to the petitioner, thereafter no date was communicated to him and an order was passed on 31.12.2005 which was despatched on 5.4.2006 to the petitioner, invalidating his tribe claim. The petitioner contends that the vigilance cell report was not furnished to him and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. 4. We had directed the learned counsel appearing for the scrutiny committee to ascertain from the record as to whether the vigilance cell report was, in deed, furnished to the petitioner. The record does not indicate that though it was dispatched to him, the petitioner had received the report. The vigilance cell report is a vital document which is required to be furnished to the individual in order to enable him to make submissions in that regard before the Committee. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the decision of the scrutiny committee is vitiated. 4 wp2145.07 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 1.8.2011. The Scrutiny Committee will furnish to him the report of the vigilance cell and decide the matter pertaining to the petitioner's claim thereafter. The Scrutiny Committee-Respondent No. 2 shall decide the claim of the petitioner within six months thereafter. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (M.T. JOSHI) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp2145.07