(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5925 OF 2008 Maruti s/o. Ganpatrao Birajdar, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service as Mechanical Engineer (Operation), M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Transport, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, "Vahatuk Bhavan", Mumbai Central, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Central Office, Mumbai. 3. The General Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relation), Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, "Vahatuk Bhavan", Mumbai Central, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Central Office, Mumbai. (2) 4. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Osmanabad Division, Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. 5. The Caste Scrutiny and Verification Committee, at Nagpur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, holding for Mr. Y.R. Barhate, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 5. Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate, for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Leave to add the Scrutiny Committee as party, (3) respondent no.5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service on behalf of the said respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was initially appointed as Assistant Workshop Superintendent in the employment of respondent no.2, way back in the year 1981. While being in the employment, the petitioner firstly came to be promoted in the post of Depot Manager in the year 1985 and thereafter to the post of Deputy Mechanical Engineer, in the year 1992. Lastly, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Mechanical Engineer, in the year 2003. Initial appointment, so also, promotions granted to the petitioner were against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste category. 4. According to the petitioner, he possesses a certificate issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, to the effect that the petitioner belongs to "Lingder" caste, whereas according to the respondent, the petitioner has failed to establish his caste status by having the caste claim verified at the hands of the Scrutiny Committee. It is also case of respondent no.2, that the petitioner does not belong to "Lingder" caste but belongs to "Lingdhar". "Lingdhar" is not included and recognized as Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Caste Amendment Act of 1976. 5. In the above set of facts, the petitioner was served (4) with a show cause notice calling upon him to submit the original documents so as to enable the verification of the caste claim, as according to the respondent no.2, the petitioner had not submitted the relevant documents at the time of his appointment. Per contra, it is the submission of the petitioner, that he had submitted all the relevant documents. 6. Without entering into the said controversy, as to whether, did the petitioner submit necessary documents at the time of his appointment, indicating his caste status, or otherwise, it is evident from the caste certificate, which is annexed on record, at page 29 of the petition, that the petitioner is possessed of a caste certificate issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Wardha, dated 21st December 1979. The petitioner has put in service for about 25 years prior to the termination of his service. Perusal of the impugned order viz. the order of termination reveals that the termination of service is solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. 7. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct verification of the caste claim of the petitioner. In our view, verification of the caste claim of the petitioner would subserve the ends of justice, more so, when the petitioner has put in 25 years of service and the impugned order does not only (5) deprive him of the service but also goes to forfeit all the service benefits accrued to the petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) By consent of parties, we direct the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents which would facilitate verification of the caste claim of the petitioner at the hands of the Scrutiny Committee, to the respondent nos.2 and 3, including the caste certificate, in original, if available. In the event, if the original caste certificate is not available, the petitioner shall furnish a certified true copy thereof. The petitioner shall submit the documents to the respondent nos.2 and 3 within a period of two weeks from today. (ii) The respondent nos.2 and 3, on receipt of the said documents, shall forward the documents to the respondent no.5 / Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim of the petitioner. (iii) The respondent no.5 / Scrutiny Committee, in turn, shall cause an inquiry to be made and shall verify the caste claim of the petitioner to "Lingder", Scheduled Caste. (iv) In the peculiar facts of this case, we direct the respondent (6) no.5 / Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's caste claim within six months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (v) We make it clear, that the impugned order of termination would be subject to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the Scrutiny Committee. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Certified Copy expedited. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5925