1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3810 OF 2006 Ashok s/o Vaijanath Girgiwar, Age-39 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded, At present: Ambejogai, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Through its Chairman/Director, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, 3) The Taluka Executive Magistrate, Kandhar, Dist-Nanded, 4) The Collector, Collectorate, Nanded, 5) The District Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Osmanabad. 6) The District Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Beed. 7) The Deputy Director, Accounts & Treasury, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.S.C. Yeramwar Advocate h/f. Shri A.S. Golegaonkar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Shri. P.S. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. R.P. Phatke Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Chattri", Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 31st December, 2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner. 3 3. It is contended that the Petitioner was appointed as senior clerk in Treasury Office in the year 1993. It is submitted that the Petitioner is still in service, as his services were protected under the orders of this Court. 4. The Petitioner in Ground No.II of the Petition contends that: "(II) The order of Committee is, prima facie, perverse and reveals sheer non-application of judicious mind. By letter dt. 20/9/2005, petitioner was called for personal hearing on 30/9/2005. But, he could not remain present, as the letter dt.20/9/2005 was received by petitioner on 30/9/2005 itself. Therefore, by letter dt. 1/10/2005, petitioner had pointed out that a copy of report of Vigilance Cell has not been served upon him and a 4 copy of the report may be given and on account of belated receipt of letter for interview, he may be again called for hearing. But, while rejecting claim, Committee observes that petitioner was present for personal hearing and he was heard finally. Despite the fact that petitioner could not remain present for personal hearing on 30/9/2005, as the letter dt. 20/9/2005 was received by him on 30/9/2005, Committee did not forget to make a facade that it 'did follow principles of natural justice in letter & spirit' and it gave full hearing to petitioner. This attempt on the part of Committee reveals perversity of the order and shows sheer non- application of mind of quasi judicial authority. Admittedly, adjudication of an issue of Social Status of a 5 claimant is a matter of very serious nature. An adverse decision by a Committee not only affects a claimant but also it goes to deny reservation benefits to his progeny as well. Therefore, a quasi judicial authority i.e. Committee is not only expected to decide caste claim with application of judicious mind but also it is expected that such an application of judicious mind on the part of the Committee applied while adjudicating a claim must have its reflection in its order as well." 5. We have perused the impugned order. We have considered the submissions advanced by the the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. In the facts of the case, we find that fresh opportunity is required to be provided to the Petitioner. The matter needs to be remanded 6 back to the Scrutiny Committee. 7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 31st December 2005, passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 8. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 1st September, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner is entitled to receive copy of vigilance cell report on the date of appearance before the Scrutiny Committee, if not earlier received. If vigilance cell report is not ready, the Scrutiny Committee is entitled to call fresh vigilance cell report. The Petitioner shall file reply, if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of vigilance cell report. The Petitioner is entitled to lead evidence. The Scrutiny Committee is entitled to verify the claim in accordance with law and dispose of the claim within six months from the date of first 7 appearance of the Petitioner before it. The Petitioner shall co-operate with the Scrutiny Committee. In case the Petitioner does not co- operate with the Scrutiny Committee, we direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the Petitioner's caste claim on the available evidence. All issues are kept open. . Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp3810.06