1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7644 OF 2008 Kalyan Sopanrao Sonawane ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.R. Andhale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 2, 7 & 8. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.6 ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5523 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10080 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10081 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10083 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10084 OF 2009 Sundar s/o Sopanrao Kolhe ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. For respondent No.1. ..... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 19TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in writ petition No. 7644 of 2008, which is Public Interest Litigation, is to the appointments of respondent Nos.9 and 10 on the ground that they have been appointed against the reserved posts. This argument proceeds on the basis of communication dated 15.7.1996 at page 14 of the paper book. Even on the plain reading of the said communication, it is noticed that respondent No.9 was appointed on reserved post for administrative exigency on temporary basis. It was not regular appointment of respondent No.9 as such. Indeed, respondent No.9 was continued on that post till 30.10.1996, when he was eventually appointed on regular basis against the open post. That fact can be discerned from the office order dated 30.10.1996, issued under the signature of in charge Joint Secretary of Law and Judiciary Department. Copy thereof is placed on record in the companion petition. In that sense there is no substance in the challenge in respect of appointment of respondent No.9 since he has been appointed on regular basis in an open post and not on reserved post, as contended. 3 3 In so far as respondent No.10 is concerned, it is submitted that he does not belong to reserve category and challenge to his caste claim is pending consideration before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, nevertheless, the said respondent has been appointed on regular basis against reserved post. 4 Learned A.G.P., on instructions, points out that under the same order respondent No.10 has been appointed against reserved post initially in the year 1986 and later on promoted as Superintendent on regular basis on 9.7.1996 against the reserved post. However, that appointment will be subject to outcome of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We fail to understand as to why the Caste Scrutiny Committee should take such a long time to decide the caste claim of respondent No.10. It is noticed that the caste claim of his brother has been invalidated on 19.8.1996. If that decision of blood relation is available with the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Committee will have to decide the challenge to the Caste claim of respondent No. 10 expeditiously by following appropriate procedure as may be permissible by law. That be done expeditiously and in any event not later than 31.3.2010. It is brought to our notice by the learned A.G.P. that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of caste claim of the brother of respondent No.10 could not be challenged, as he expired after the said order was passed. Needless to observe that 4 the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to decide the caste claim of respondent No.10 in accordance with the settled legal position and following due process. All questions in that behalf will have to be answered on its own merits. 5. S.O. to 5.4.2010. To be listed under the caption “Directions”. 6. In view of the above observations, writ petition filed by respondent No.9 being writ petition No. 5523 of 2009 and the reliefs claimed therein, will have to be granted, as the show cause notice, which is impugned in the said petition, was initiated on the representation made by the petitioner in writ petition No.7644 of 2008. Thus the writ petition No.5523 of 2009 succeeds for the reasons already recorded as above. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. As the main writ petition itself is allowed, Civil Application Nos. 10080 of 2009, 10081 of 2009, 10083 of 2009 and 10084 of 2009, pending in writ petition No.5523 of 2009, do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. *****