1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5743 of 2009 Date of decision:11/11/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH H.PATIL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/ may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? /No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see /No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? /No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the /No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/wp5743-09 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5743 of 2009 Kum. Shaikh Sadiya Begum Shaikh Mehboob, Age 19 years, Occ: student, Through her father: Shaikh Mehboob Shaikh Isak, Age 43 years, Occ: Labour, r/o Vidya Nagar, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class, Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary. 3. Principal, College of Fishery Science, Udgir, Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.M.Mundhe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, AGP, for respondent State. Mr. B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Adv., for 3 respondent no.2. Mr. P.R.Rodge, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2009. *** ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per Naresh H.Patil, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Fishery Science and is studying in College of Fishery Science, Udgir, respondent no.3. Her caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The claim was invalidated and, therefore, petitioner filed writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 4. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the Vigilance Cell report was not served on the petitioner, which is an essential requirement, as held by this Court in various cases, for deciding the caste claim of the candidate. Absence of service of Vigilance Cell report causes prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 4 5. Learned Counsel Shri B.L.Sagar Killarikar has verified original record and, on instructions, makes a statement that there is no evidence in the original file of service of Vigilance Cell Report on the petitioner. 6. We find that on this ground alone the matter needs to be remanded back to the Committee. The Committee should take abundant precaution while deciding the cases to ascertain as to whether Vigilance Cell Reports are served on the persons concerned. In absence thereof, multiplicity of litigation occurs and valuable time of this Court is consumed. We expect that the respondent Committee, in future, would adopt certain measures to verify, before a matter is decided finally, as to whether Vigilance Cell Report is served properly on the person concerned. 7. On the grounds mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee dt.16/6/2009, issued on 18/7/2009, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 23.11.2009 at 11 a.m. and accept the Vigilance Cell Report, if available with the Committee. The Report shall be served by the 5 Committee on the petitioner or any authorized person appointed by the petitioner in this regard. The matter, thereafter, shall be heard from that stage onwards. The Committee shall, thereafter, grant two weeks' time from the service of the Vigilance Cell Report on the petitioner and, thereafter, shall dispose of the matter within two months, on its own merits and in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Rule made absolute in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H.PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE ... agp/wp5743-09