1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5677 OF 2008 Mangala Moreshwar Raje .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 and 3. Shri J. R. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 02. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as 2 clerk/typist with effect from 06.12.1976 in open category. The said post was meant for open category candidate. In the year 1986 she was promoted as statistician on the basis of seniority from open category. Thereafter, she was promoted as Joint Secretary on the basis of seniority from open category. The petitioner served for more than 32 years. The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash and set aside a communication dated 28.04.2008 issued by respondent No. 3/District Deputy Registrar addressed to the respondent No. 4 for referring the petitioner's caste certificate for verification to the scrutiny committee. The petitioner further prays for directions to the respondent No. 4 to consider the claim for promotional post of Secretary from open category. 03. Counsel for the petitioner contents that the petitioner was appointed as typist with effect from 06.12.1976 from open category. She came to be promoted as statistician in the year 1986, on the basis of seniority from open category against a post meant for open category. The petitioner thereafter came to be promoted as Joint Secretary, on the basis of seniority from open category. The petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Secretary from open category now. Counsel submits that, the 3 post which was held by Mr. Adhane was lying vacant since 2003 to 2010 and in the month of February 2010 a person belonging to Scheduled Caste was appointed. Therefore, the post held by the petitioner must be from the open category. The counsel submits that at no point of time the petitioner enjoyed or held promotional post from N.T. - D category. 04. The respondent/State filed affidavit in reply. In para No. 8 and 9 the deponent contended as under : "8. I say and submit that, the verification of the Assistant Commissioner (B.C. Cell) from the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 08.09.2003 and 23.05.2006 endorsed that the petitioner has been promoted from the reserved category (NT-D) against the point reserved for SC post on 28.08.2001 on the post of Assistant Secretary of the said Respondent No. 4 A.P.M.C. Aurangabad. The copy of the said verifications and certificate of Asst. Commissioner (B.C. Cell) Aurangabad are annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-R-4. 9. I say and submit that, the above said aspects makes it clear that the Petitioner has been claiming the benefits for the said reserved category on the basis of the aforesaid certificate of Nath Jogi (NT-D) and has availed such of the benefits as seen from the above said verification of the Asstt. Commissioner 4 (B.C. Cell) Aurangabad and therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that during her tenure of 32 years service she never intended nor availed nor she intended to avail are not correct." 05. The respondent No. 4 filed affidavit in reply. In para No. 2 it is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed for supression of material facts from this Court. The counsel submitted that the petitioner though filed writ petition earlier bearing Writ Petition No. 2137/1994 and though also communicated to the employer seeking appointment as a reserved candidate, has not disclosed the said fact in the present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State and A.P.M.C. submitted that petitioner's promotion is in reserve category as N.T.-D category candidate. On continuous representations made to the Director of the Marketing Maharashtra State Pune and District Deputy Registrar Co- operative Societies, one additional post of Assistant Secretary was sanctioned and the petitioner was appointed on the said post. The petitioner has suppressed this communication from this Court. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4/A.P.M.C. placed on record communication dated 25.06.2008 made by the A.P.M.C. to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, wherein it was 5 requested to verify the caste claim of the petitioner. 06. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. The allegations of the petitioner are repeated in the rejoinder that under pressure of some organization, the caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. 07. Prima facie, nothing is placed on record which would disclose that the petitioner made several representations to the effect that her case be considered for appointment on the promotional post as a candidate belonging to reserved caste N.T.- D. The endorsement of the B.C. Cell on the relevant documents shows that the appointment of the petitioner was not on reserved post and there is backlog of scheduled caste, and it was endorsed that the next post must be filled in from the Scheduled Caste category and accordingly, it was filled in in the month of February 2010. 08. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 2137/1994. Said petition came to be rejected by this Court by reasoned order. 6 09. We have perused the communication made by the petitioner to the A.P.M.C. dated 21.09.1991, wherein she had made request to appoint her to the post of Secretary/Assistant Secretary. She had also stated in the said communication that in the service record it is mentioned that she belongs to N.T.-D category. 10. At this state, we do not find substance to reject the contention of the respondents that, petitioner was holding the promotional post as a candidate of reserved class. In the light of the explanation given hereinabove, we do not find any error on the part of the respondent No. 3, directing the respondent No. 4 to refer the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner for verification to the scrutiny committee. There is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the committee would decide the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merits within six months from today. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/April.10