1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 198 of 2009 with Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2000 (D) Ashok S/o Madhusudan Nampalliwar, Aged 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Khaparkheda, Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. .......APPELLANT. ...VERSUS... The Works Manager, Central Workshop, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, M.I.D.C., Hingna Road, Dist. Nagpur. ......RESPONDENT. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. A.H.Jamal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for Respondent C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 17th August, 2010. 1] Heard Mr. A.H.Jamal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. 2] By this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant is seeking review of the order dated 18/11/2008 passed by the Division Bench (Coram : D.K.Deshmukh and P.B.Varale, JJ.), dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2000. The order passed by the Division Bench reads thus : 2 “In the instant petition, the admitted position is that, while seeking apprenticeship, petitioner claimed that he belongs to reserved category. After he was appointed, his caste certificate was sent for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Caste Certificates are sent for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee only when the candidate claims appointment against a reserved post. When the Caste Certificate of petitioner was sent for scrutiny to the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner did not raise any objection. If, according to the petitioner, his appointment was not made against the reserved post, then when the Caste Certificate of petitioner was sent for scrutiny, he could have raised objection saying that it is not necessary to verify his caste claim because he is not seeking appointment against a reserved seat. The petitioner did not do it. He waited till the Caste Certificate was found to be invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In our opinion, therefore, now the petitioner cannot turn around and say that as his appointment order does not mention that his appointment was not against a reserved seat, he is not a candidate appointed to occupy a reserved seat. It is not disputed before us that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner to his employer has been found to be invalid. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application Nos.5284 of 2008 and 8502 of 2008 are disposed of.” 3] Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited our attention to the order of the Supreme Court, dated 31/8/2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1177 of 2004. 3 The appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against the order dated 19/3/2001, passed by the Division Bench in the very same writ petition, by which the petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the appeal, passed the following order :- “A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant primarily on the ground that his caste claim was found to be invalidated. The appellant pleaded that though the post to which he was appointed may have been meant for schedule tribe candidate, he was not appointed as a schedule tribe candidate. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application form to which reference has been made in the counter affidavit clearly indicates that the appellant claimed to be appointed on the post reserved for schedule tribe. It appears that the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage. Since adequate material was not placed to substantiate the rival stands before the High Court, it would be appropriate for the High Court to examine the matter afresh and give the respondent an opportunity to place materials in support of its stand that the appellant was appointed to a post meant for schedule tribe. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The High Court shall grant adequate opportunity to the parties to place materials in support of their respective stand and shall decide the matter afresh.” 4] On the basis of the order of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after remand, the respondents, though had an opportunity to place materials on record in support of their stand that the 4 appellant was appointed to a post meant for Scheduled Tribe, they did not do so. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court had granted such opportunity not only to the respondents, but even to the appellant to place materials on record in support of their respective stand. Admittedly, the appellant did not produce any such material after the order of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the respondents are concerned, they have filed reply affidavit to this application and in paragraph 2(vii) thereof, stated that they had already placed the necessary documents along with their submissions filed in February, 2001, pointing out that the appointment of the applicant was against the Scheduled Tribe category. It is against this backdrop, we do not find any error on the face of record in the order dated 18/11/2008 passed in the Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2000. In our opinion, no ground for review is made out and hence, the review application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale