1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.412 OF 2009 Smt. Nisha Tukaram Sonawane, Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil, C/o Shri T.S. Teli, Vivekanand Nagar, Near Sanjiwani Blood Bank, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar through its Chief Executive Officer 2. District Selection Committee, The Collector, Ahmednagar 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 4. Caste Scrutiny Committee through Divisional Welfare Officer, Nashik 5. Smt. Archana Bhausaheb Kajale, Age : 26 years, Occ. Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Services Project, Shrigonda, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr Jiwan Patil, Advocate holding for Mr V.D. Sapkal for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr S.T. Shelke for respondent no.1; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 & 3; Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent no. 4; Mr Y.S. Choudhari,Advocate for respondent no.5. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially prayed for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the appointment order dated 17.9.2008 issued in favour of respondent no.5 by respondent no.1 appointing her as a Supervisor. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the caste certificate issued by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.5. Thereafter the petition came to be amended as a validity certificate came to be issued to respondent no.5 and by virtue of the amended prayer the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the validity certificate issued to respondent no.5 on 23.1.2009. 3. In respect of prayer clause (B), (C) and (D) of the petition, according to us the reliefs do not survive for consideration. 3 4. We are, therefore, in this petition dealing with the relief sought by the petitioner in respect of the amended prayer clause (C-1) i.e. for quashing and setting aside the validity certificate issued by the Committee in favour of respondent no.5. Undisputedly, the order by which validity certificate came to be issued in favour of respondent no.5 is a non-speaking order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Paras Ram & ors., 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 555 (S.C.), particularly to the observations of the Supreme Court that reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Our attention has also been invited to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pashamiya Khajamiya Attar vs. State of Mah. & ors., 2008 (6) Bom. C.R. 248, wherein the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (P.V. Hardas, J.) was a member, had quashed and set aside an unreasoned order of the Scrutiny Committee. 4 5. Since undisputedly no reasons have been given by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee in its exercise of appreciating the various documents and particularly dealing with the question as to whether the respondent no.5 has been able to discharge the burden of proof satisfactorily establishing that she belongs to a particular caste. In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the validity certificate issued to respondent no.5. 6. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The validity certificate issued to respondent no.5 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. The respondent Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish reasons for arriving at a decision which the respondent Scrutiny Committee may arrive at on appreciation of all the documents. The respondent no.5 has been appointed as a Supervisor on the basis of a caste certificate which was issued to her and her service has been continued on the basis of the validity certificate issued in her favour. In the light of the fact that we have remitted the matter back to the respondent no.4 Committee, we direct that no adverse action be taken against the respondent no. 5 5 solely on the basis of the fact that we have set aside the validity certificate issued in her favour and have remitted the matter back to the Committee for a decision afresh. In order to assist the Scrutiny Committee in its expeditious disposal of the caste claim of the respondent, we direct the respondent no.5 to appear before the respondent no.4 Committee on 12th August, 2009 and also direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of respondent no.5 within six months from 12th August, 2009. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J.] amj/wp412.09