1 W.P.No.5574/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5574 OF 2008. Dattatraya S/o Kishanrao Phulgame, Age 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o At Babhalgaon, Tq.Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Dy.Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Latur, Dist.Latur. 4. The Secretary, Dayanand Shgikshan Prasarak Mandal, Babhalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur. 5. The Principal Late Venkatrao Deshmukh College, Babhalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. 2 W.P.No.5574/10 Mr.S.M.Vibhute, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.P.Phatake, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 11.01.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Peon by the Respondent No.4 institution in Respondent No. 5 College. The Caste Certificate of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe was referred to the Respondent No.2 Committee for verification. The Respondent No.2 Committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled Tribe. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr.Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not served with the notice of hearing and as such 3 W.P.No.5574/10 could not remain present. The judgment of the Scrutiny Committee is exparte. According to him, an opportunity of hearing deserves to be given to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the Vigilance Committee report also does not show that any inquiry was made with regard to ethnic linkage and affinity nor judgment of the Scrutiny Committee has taken into consideration the said aspect. According to him, the said judgment suffers from perversity. 3. Per contra, Mr.Phatake, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 Committee states that notice was issued to the petitioner about the date of hearing but the petitioner did not remain present. The Committee has considered all the relevant documents on record and has arrived at just conclusion. According to the learned counsel, no fault can be found in the judgment of the Committee. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the judgment, so also the record made available to us by 4 W.P.No.5574/10 Mr.Phatake, learned counsel for the Respondent Committee. On perusal of the Vigilance report, it is clear that no inquiry has been made regarding ethnic linkage or affinity. So also the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee does not discuss about the same. Though notice was issued, there is nothing on record to show that the said notice was ever served upon the petitioner. In absence of the same it can not be presumed that the petitioner was served with the notice of hearing. As the judgment has been delivered without hearing the petitioner, the same would be against the principles of natural justice. So also the Vigilance Report nowhere shows any inquiry being conducted about the affinity and the ethnic linkage. 5. In light of the above facts, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the Respondent No.2 Committee. The Committee shall direct the Vigilance Cell to make necessary inquiry about the affinity and ethnic linkage and submit the report. The copy of which shall be given to the petitioner so also the 5 W.P.No.5574/10 petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the Committee and thereafter the Committee shall decide the proceeding on its own merits. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 24.1.2011. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. However,there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp5574.08