1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2584/2007 (Waman Lobhji Dhakate vs. 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.D.Harode, Adv. H/F Shri S.R.Narnaware, Adv. for appellant. Shri A.S.Fulzele, AGP, for R-1 Shri S.M.Puranik, Adv. for R-2 Shri A.Y.Kapgate, Adv. for R-2 & 4 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 20 th JUNE, 2008. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. 3. We also had opportunity to peruse the original file of the Scrutiny Committee to reassure ourselves that the facts noted in the impugned decision are accurate. We are satisfied that the Scrutiny Committee has adopted necessary procedure and also gave fair opportunity to the petitioner. 4. The facts recorded by the Inquiry Committee in Paragraph 5 is supported by the original record to the effect that 2 the petitioner was given two months time to submit say on police vigilance report, which he did not avail. As a consequence the Committee proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of materials already on record. 5. In the present case, we find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Committee that the petitioner belongs to “Koshti” community, which is not part of “Halba”, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. 6. The petitioner has relied on the primary school leaving certificate of his father, dated 9th April, 1952, which records the caste of his father as “Koshti”. The petitioner having himself relied on this document could not be heard that he belongs to “Halba” community, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe, having regard to the opinion now finally expressed by the Supreme Court on this subject. 7. In our opinion, no interference is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. 8. We are not impressed with the grievance of the petitioner that proper inquiry has not been conducted by the Scrutiny Committee or for that matter the Scrutiny Committee ought to have collected further evidence to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner. As aforesaid, since the petitioner himself relies on a document which is of period 1952, pertaining to his 3 father, he cannot ask for more than what is contained in the said document. 9. Thus understood, the opinion recorded by the Committee that the petitioner belongs to “Koshti” community and not “Halba” Scheduled Tribe is unexceptionable. The petition, therefore, should fail. 10. The petitioner, however, has claimed further relief for direction to the respondents to protect his service in terms of decision of the Apex Court in Milind Katware's case. Even this submission will have to be turned down having regard to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Dattatraya Namdeo Mendhekar & ors (2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 720. Recently we had occasion to consider such argument in other similar cases i.e. order dated 22nd April, 2008 in W.P. No. 6636/05 in the case of Shri Shrikant vs. State & ors; order dated 5th May, 2008 in W.P. No. 2864/07 in the case of Prabhakar Anandrao Umredkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others and lastly order dated 6th June 2008 in W.P. No. 6510/06 in the case of Shivshankar vs. S.C.Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. 11. In our opinion, as the petitioner had asserted and claimed that he belonged to “Halba” Community, which stand has been negatived as false as the petitioner belongs to “Koshti” Community and not “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, the view taken by 4 the Apex Court in Dattatraya's case will squarely apply to the case in hand. 12. Hence, petition has no merits. The same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit