IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Dilawar Mirza Baig Age 30 , Occ. Farmer R/o. At post Varud Kazi Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. Mr. Anandsing Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.6. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 19th SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent finally. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order passed by the scrutiny committee thereby IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to “Muslim Teli” OBC. 3] Shri Bayas, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Scrutiny Committee has basically rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the basis of the caste certificate of the petitioner's father, certifying him to be belonging to Momin caste. According to the petitioner, the said certificate is produced by respondent No.6 and that the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the case about the said certificate. He submits that, as a matter of fact, such a certificate was not at all issued in favour of the petitioner's father. 4] Shri Talekar, learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that the entire record would show that the petitioner does not belong to Teli community. 5] Perusal of the impugned order would also reveal that though the vigilance cell has recommended the case of the petitioner, the scrutiny committee has not even referred to the same. No doubt, that the report of the vigilance cell is not binding on the committee. However, the least that is required from the committee is that it should have given reasons as to why it does not agree with the vigilance cell report. 6] In that view of the matter, we pass the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 order :- [i] The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the scrutiny committee for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh. [ii] The committee is directed to give hearing to the petitioner, particularly, with respect to the alleged certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father. Needless to state that the scrutiny committee will also opine in respect to the finding of the vigilance cell. [iii] Petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee on 5th October, 2011. The committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner within one month from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the committee. [iv] It is directed that till the decision of the committee, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-