AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7447 OF 2008 Sadiya Rafat Abdul Qayyum Bagalkote ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 9/9/2008 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune (for short, “the Scrutiny Committee”). AJN 2 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court (S.B. Mhase and R.M. Savant, JJ.) dated 1/9/2009 in Writ Petition No.8413 of 2008 in Abhay Dnaneshwar Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and other companion writ petitions. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not properly constituted. He pointed out that one of the members of the Scrutiny Committee was Mr. A.V. Hankare. Learned counsel submitted that in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Department, AIR (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in case of Scheduled Tribes, a Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, part of or groups of tribes or tribal communities, must be appointed as member of the Scrutiny Committee. He pointed out that Mr. Hankare is working as Junior AJN 3 Administrative Officer with the Scrutiny Committee. He is not a Research Officer and, therefore, he could not have acted as a member of the Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel submitted that this view has been taken by this court in Abhay Jagtap’s case (supra). In that case, on this ground alone, the order of the Scrutiny Committee was set aside. He submitted that similar course may be followed herein. 4. We have gone through the judgment of this court in Abhay Jagtap’s case (supra). There can be no dispute about the fact that Mr. Hankare acted as a member of the Scrutiny Committee. There is also no dispute that Mr. Hankare is not a Research Officer and he is working as a Junior Administrative Officer. In the circumstances of the case, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and the judgment of this court in Abhay Jagtap’s case (supra), the impugned order dated 9/9/2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee. We direct the Scrutiny AJN 4 Committee to dispose of the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. Needless to say that his court has not considered the merits of the case and the matter may be disposed on merits. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]