1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2773 /2007 Venkat s/o Prabhakar Jamdar age 42 years, Occ-Service, R/o Post.Talani via Killari Tq.Ausa, Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Tribal Development Department, Mantralay, Mumbai- 400 032 2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurnagabad Through its Member Secretary. 3] The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Shankar Shet Road Pune – 411 037 ...RESPONDENTS 2 .... Shri P.G.Rodge,Advocate for petitioner Shri R.P.Phatake,A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Shri U.S.Malte,Adv for respondent no.2 Shri M.K.Goyanka,Adv.for Respondent no.3 .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 06/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally. 2] The petitioner claims to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe). His caste claim was invalidated by order dated 24/4/2007. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of vigilance cell report was not served on the petitioner. Zerox copy of the validity certificate alongwith original copy of the affidavit of petitioner’s real cousin brother Nagnath Malkappa Jamadar, was not considered by the scrutiny committee. The counsel submits that the petitioner is in service since 1997. 3 4] Learned counsel Shri Malte appearing on behalf of scrutiny committee, produced original record. Learned counsel submits on the basis of the record that there is no evidence to show that the vigilance cell report was served on the petitioner. From the order passed by the scrutiny committee, it can be noticed that the committee did not opine in respect of validity certificate in favour of the petitioner’s real cousin brother. 5] The service of vigilance cell report on the petitioner is essential. On that ground, the counsel states that the matter is required to be remanded back. 6] The scrutiny committee shall also appreciate the evidence of document which is validity certificate issued in favour of the real cousin brother of the petitioner. After serving vigilance cell report, the matter be re-heard and accordingly decided. We therefore, pass following order : 7] The impugned order passed by the scrutiny committee dated 24/4/2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the scrutiny committee. The petitioner shall appear before the scrutiny committee on 5th May 2010 at 11 a.m. The committee shall serve copy of vigilance report to the petitioner on the said date. The petitioner, if choses, can file reply to the vigilance cell report within 15 days from 5th May 2010. The committee thereafter, shall hear the petitioner and after 4 appreciating evidence produced on record earlier and the reply filed to the vigilance cell report, if any and thereafter, pass a fresh reasoned order within 3 months from the date of hearing. All issues are kept open. In case petitioner fails to cooperate with the scrutiny committee, the scrutiny committee is entitled to pass order on the basis of available record. The petitioner shall not be permitted to lead any fresh evidence. With these directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. [N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] [NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/wp2773-07