Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3219 of 2008 Dilip Sitaram Waghmare ...Petitioner V/s. Zilla Parishad Through its Chief Executive Officer, Satara & anr. ...Respondents Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr.V.A.Smpal, AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ JJ JJ 5th 5th 5th June, 2008 June, 2008 June, 2008 P.C. . By this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad dated 30-4-2008 reverting the petitioner to a lower post. The petitioner was promoted to a higher post by order dated 20-10-2000 because he claimed that he belongs to Schedule Tribe. After his promotion in 2000, it appears that the petitioner did not submit his validity certificate so that his claim that he belongs to Schedule Tribe could be verified by the Committee appointed by the State Government. Therefore, on 7-1-2004 the memorandum was addressed to the petitioner by the Zilla Parishad pointing out that he has been promoted against the reserved post and that the Government has appointed a Committee by resolution dated 8-12-2003 for verification of the caste claim, 2 therefore, the petitioner should submit following documents to the authority who has written this letter so that those documents could be forwarded by that authority to the scrutiny committee for verifying the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner annexed copy of the memorandum dated 7.1.2004 to his petition by making averments in para-4 and in para-5 he states that the petitioner forwarded documents through proper channel and the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer who has addressed the memorandum dated 7.1.2004 forwarded the papers to the verification committee. This claim of the petitioner that after receiving the communication dated 7.1.2004 he submitted the necessary papers does not appear to be correct because by letter dated 30.5.06, the copy of which is at exh. H, he was told that though by memorandum dated 7.1.2004 he was asked to submit necessary papers, he has not cared to submit those papers. Reply that is given by the petitioner is dated 10.6.2006 copy of which is at exh. I. In that reply the petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the statement made in the letter dated 30.5.2006 that he has not submitted his documents pursuant to the letter dated 7.1.2004. On the contrary he gave the reason of his illness for his failure to submit the documents. It is thus clear from the record that from 7.1.2004 till the show-cause notice was issued on 30.5.2006, the petitioner did not submit the documents. By show-cause 3 notice dated 30.5.2006 he was told that because he has not submitted documents, he is not able to produce validity certificate. He was given further time of 15 days to submit necessary documents and he was told that if the validity certificate is not produced within 15 days, he will be reverted. Reply that is given to the show-cause notice contends only the submissions about alleged inability of the petitioner to produce documents because of his illness. It appears that thereafter the petitioner submitted documents to his employer which were forwarded to the Committee and the matter is pending before the Committee. Fact remains that till today the petitioner has not been able to produce validity certificate and, therefore, by order dated 30.4.08 he has been reverted. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is an averment made in the petition that pursuant to the letter of 2004, he submitted the documents. He also submitted that there is an averment made in the petition that the brother of the petitioner visited the Committee but the Committee has not decided the caste claim. The Learned Counsel submitted that papers have been submitted in any case in the year 2006 but the Committee is not deciding the caste claim of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not have been reverted. In our opinion, this submission is not sound. 4 We find from the petition that petition’s contents and averments are vague. No particulars are given. We also find that the statement made in para-5 is contrary to the record. From the record it is clear that in 2004 petitioner was clearly told that he has to submit relevant papers to his employer so that it can be forwarded to the committee. He did nothing till 2006. He submitted papers only when he was given show-cause notice asking him to show-cause why he should not be reverted. 3. Taking over all view of the matter and specially considering that the petitioner is occupying the post which is given to him because of his claim that he belongs to Schedule Tribe, in our opinion, it was the duty of the petitioner to immediately submit his papers to the employer but the petitioner submitted the papers belatedly in 2006. We find this is not the fit case where this Court should interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition rejected. 4. At this stage request is made for continuation of the interim order. In our opinion, considering that the petitioner is occupying the post which is reserved for backward class and that the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to backward class could not be verified till today due to the conduct of the petitioner himself. In 5 our opinion, therefore, it will not be appropriate to continue the interim order. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)