- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.241/2010 Harish s/o Sopansing Rajput, age 25 yrs., occu.service, r/o old Ausa Road, Latur. Tq. & Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, in the Department of Social Justice and Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Committee No.2, Division Latur. Dist.Latur. (Through its Chairman). 3] The Sub Divisional Officer, Latur. Tq. & Dist.Latur. 4] The General Manager of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai. 5] The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., EHV CC O & M Zone, Karad at Vijaynagar, Post Supne Dist.Satara. 6] The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd.,a EHV CC O & M Zone, Karad at Vijaynagar, Post Supne Dist.Satara. ...Respondents... - 2 - ..... Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.V. Advant, Advocate for respondent nos.4 to 6. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent – scrutiny committee dated 30.12.1999 thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta, which is recognized as Vimukta Jati. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that in the certificate of father of the petitioner regarding admission to Zilla Parishad Primary School, the word “Bhamta” has been written in a different ink. 3] It has been further found by the committee that the document pertaining to the revenue records wherein caste of grand-father of the petitioner is written as - 3 - Rajput Bhamta, the word “Bhamta” has been written in a different ink. 4] The Apex Court in the case of Sayanna V/s State of Maharashtra reported in [ 2010 (1) ALL MR 957 ] was considering the case of a candidate belonging to Mannerwarlu – scheduled tribe. In the said case, the claim was rejected since according to the committee, the word “lu” was written subsequently. The decision of the scrutiny committee invalidating the claim of the candidate was affirmed by the High Court. In appeal, the Apex Court found that the committee did not possess the expertise to find out as to whether the word “lu” written in a different ink was interpolated or not. It was further found that the Police Inspector had also not recorded the statements of persons in whose custody the original documents were, to find out as to whether there was any scope for interpolation. As such the decisions of the scrutiny committee as well as the High Court were set aside by the Apex Court. The facts in the present case are identical. The committee has neither obtained the opinion of the handwriting expert to find out as to whether the words “Bha” and “Bhamta” were interpolated or not, neither the Police Inspector examined the authorities in whose custody the records were, to find out as to whether there was any scope for interpolation. 5] In that view of the matter, the petition will have to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 – committee to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. Needless to state that the - 4 - scrutiny committee, if necessary, may get the said documents examined from the handwriting expert or record the statements of the authorities in whose custody the original record was placed. It is not in dispute that the termination of the petitioner by the respondent nos.4 to 6 is solely on the ground that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated. Since we are quashing and setting aside the order passed by the scrutiny committee, the respondent nos.4 to 6 are directed to reinstate the petitioner and continue him in service till the decision of the scrutiny committee and for further period of four weeks in the event the decision of the scrutiny committee is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c2491018