1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2828/2010 Nandkishore Shridhar Akhade ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. its Secretary, Mumbai and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. V. Thakre, Advocate for petitioner. Ms Tajvar Khan, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE AND Mrs. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATED : 1 st MARCH, 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is invalid since it failed to take into account similarity between the castes Banjara and Vanjari. The petitioner’s contention before the Caste Scrutiny Committee appears to have been that whether he is called Banjara or Vanjari, it is the same and, therefore, he should be treated as Banjara i.e. the caste, which he claims to belong. We have perused the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and we find that the Committee has negatived the petitioner’s claim since he failed to produce any evidence of belonging to Banjara community, which is a 2 Vimukta Jati under the Notification. As observed by the Committee, all the documents produced by the petitioner are in relation to Vanjari-Nomadic Tribe, under the Notification issued by the Government under G. R. dated 23.03.1994. There is no merit in the contention that it makes no difference whether a candidate is called Banjara or Vanjari. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the petition. The same is, therefore, rejected. 3. We are informed that the employer has issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice and seems to be claiming protection on the ground that he belongs to the caste Banjara. The respondent, may decide the same on the basis of the reply by passing the order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE kahale