1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3069 OF 1994 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.486 OF 2010 Pradip s/o Soma Solunke, R/o-Chincholi, Tq-Yawal, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Principal, Maharashtra Police Academy, Tryambak Road, Nasik, 2) Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Opp. Museum, Near Regal Talkies, Bombay, 3) Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Nasik, Through its Chairman and Dy. Director, Advasi Vikas Bhawan, Nasik, 4) The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.L.V. Sangit Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has questioned the correctness of the view taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has raised diverse contentions in that behalf. It is relevant to note that one of the contention of the Petitioner canvassed before us is that several relevant documents have been over-looked by the Scrutiny Committee while examining the caste claim of the Petitioner. 3. In any case, the Petitioner is now relying on the validity certificate issued in favour of blood relation of the Petitioner being nephew and uncle 3 of the Petitioner. Moreover, it is common ground that the claim of the Petitioner was considered prior to the constitution of the vigilance cell consequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. In similar situation, the Division Benchs of our High Court in the case of Satish s/o Limbraj Adatrao vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2005 (2) ALL M.R. 887 as well as unreported decision in the case of Sudhakar s/o Gunarao More vs. S.T.C.S. Committee and others decided on 4th April, 2007 in Writ Petition No.8374 of 2006 acceded to the request of the Petitioner that the Petitioner be permitted to go back before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the consideration of the caste claim afresh on its own merits, by following procedure stipulated in the decision of the Apex Court in Maduri Patil's case. 4. We are in agreement with this submission. The principle stated in the above said decisions apply 4 on all fours in the case on hand. 5. In the circumstances, this Petition is allowed and the impugned decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is set aside. Instead, the Petitioner is relegated before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the consideration of the entire matter afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving fair opportunity to the Petitioner including to rely on further documents, in particular, pertaining to the blood relations of the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 22nd February, 2010 in the Office of the Committee at 11.00 a.m., on which date the Committee may indicate the date of hearing so as to ensure that the caste claim of the Petitioner is finally decided, not later than 1st week of June, 2010, as the claim pertains to year 1994. Needless to observe that till the caste claim of the Petitioner is finally decided, the Respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the Petitioner. 5 6. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. 7. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application No.486 of 2010 and the same is disposed off. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp3069.94