1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1483 OF 2007 (Ku. Mamta Madhukarrao Hedaoo .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri P.V. Thakre, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 05TH AUGUST, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur on 13.03.2007 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the termination order dated 02nd April, 2007 issued by the respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha. The petitioner seeks the protection of her services. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Halba- Scheduled Tribe and the caste certificate of the petitioner was sent to the respondent No.3-Committee for verification. The committee, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the petitioner did not belong to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. The committee found that the Police Vigilance Cell Report clearly shows that the caste of the petitioner's cousin sister and cousin paternal aunts was recorded as “Koshti” and not “Halba”. In the year 1944, prior to the proclamation of the Scheduled Tribe's Order, 1950, the entry in the caste column of the petitioner's paternal aunts had been recorded as Koshti. The petitioner had moreover given in writing before the Scrutiny Committee that she has withdrawn her claim of belonging of Halba-Scheduled Tribe and that she may be granted benefit of Koshti-Special Backward 2 Category. It was stated in the affidavit dated 18.01.2007 that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste. In spite of filing the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 13.03.2007 along with the termination order issued by the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Committee was not properly constituted as the Vice Chairman of the Committee was not of the rank of Joint Secretary and the Member-Secretary was also not of the rank as stipulated by Direction No.4 in the case of Madhuri Patil and another .v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision GM, Indian Bank .v. R. Rani and another, reported in 2007(12) SCC 796 to canvass that the directions given in Madhuri Patil's case have the force of law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Shri Gedam, the third member on the Committee also could not have been appointed as the Research Officer as he was not qualified in view of the Government Resolutions dated 09th July, 1998 and 05th July, 2006. Shri S.M. Puranik, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-Committee supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that the constitution of the Committee was done in accordance with the provisions of law especially the provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of ) Certificate Rules, 2003. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Vice Chairman was of the rank of Joint Commissioner and the Member-Secretary was also of the rank of Deputy Director. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that Shri Gedam, the third Member had MA and MSW degrees and had been working in the Tribal Development Department for a period of 29 years of which he was working as Research Assistant with the Caste Scrutiny Committee for past 11 years. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the objection raised by the 3 petitioner in regard to the Member-Secretary in the Committee, Smt. V.P. Naik, a similar objection was raised by the same counsel for the petitioner in the case of Avinash Tulshiram Limje .v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J., 305 and the objection had been rejected. The judgment reported in Avinash Tulshiram Limje .v. State of Maharashtra and others (cited supra) was further followed in the case of Shailesh Krishnarao Kohad .v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J., 790. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order dated 13.03.2007 passed by the respondent No.2-Committee as the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Committee on 18.01.2007 withdrawing her claim of belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe and stating that she belongs to “Koshti” caste and the benefits of “Koshti” caste (Special Backward Category) be granted to her. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now say that she belongs to Halba-Scheduled Tribe and that the Committee has wrongly negatived her claim. Even on the merits of the matter, we find that the petitioner has no case as the caste of the paternal aunts of the petitioner was recorded as Koshti during the pre independence era. On the basis of this weighty piece of evidence, the respondent No.2-Committee rightly negatived the case of the petitioner. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the illegal constitution of the Scrutiny Committee, we find that the Committee has been properly constituted. There is no averment in the petitioner that the Member-Secretary and the Research Officer did not possess the requisite qualification. Apart from these facts, we find that the Research Officer on the Committee, is appointed strictly in accordance with Direction No.4 issued in Madhuri Patil and another .v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (cited supra) as it is stated in the aforesaid reported decision that the third member, 4 the Research Officer should have intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificate. We find that Shri Gedam, the Research Officer is not only possessing the qualification of MA and MSW but has vast experience of working in Tribal Development Department for a period of 29 years of which he was working as Research Assistant with the Caste Scrutiny Committee for past 11 years. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 that Shri Gedam has a vast experience in Tribal Development Department and has knowledge of identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities. We find that there is no force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the illegal constitution of the Scrutiny Committee. Even otherwise as already noted hereinabove, the petitioner has stated on affidavit before the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner belongs to “Koshti” caste (Special Backward Category) and, therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the improper constitution of the Committee are an afterthought. Hence, in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.