1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1851 OF 2003 Dr.Shriram Bhika Baviskar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar i/b. R.K.Mendadkar, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents 1,2,4 & 6. Mr.G.S.Hegde, for Respondent no.3. Mr.S.P.Kadam, for Respondent no.5. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 4th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.2.2003 by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Konkan Division, Thane. By that order, the tribunal has held that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs 2 to “Tokare Koli” scheduled tribe is not correct. The tribunal has given various reasons for recording its conclusion. At the hearing we were pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that during the pendency of this petition, the daughter of the petitioner has been granted validity certificate by the same committee and it has been certified that she belongs to Tokare koli scheduled tribe. In our opinion, grant of validity certificate in favour of the daughter of the petitioner is relevant and material circumstance which has to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Tokare Koli scheduled tribe. We have also been informed that the verification of the caste claim of the petitioner became necessary because the petitioner was claiming appointment to the post of General Manager under the respondent no.3 corporation. It is common ground that though the petitioner occupied that promotional post for some time, subsequently he was reverted from that post and the respondent no.5 was promoted to that post. It is common ground that both the petitioner and respondent no.5 have retired from the services. Therefore, now the order of the scrutiny committee may not be that much relevant from the 3 service point of view. However, in our opinion, considering the subsequent development viz. grant of caste validity certificate in favour of the daughter of the petitioner, it will be appropriate to direct the scrutiny committee to re-hear the petition and to re-consider the question of grant of validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) The order dated 12.2.2003 passed by the committee which is impugned in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. (ii) It is directed that the Scrutiny committee shall, while deciding the matter, take into consideration the fact that validity certificate has been granted in favour of the daughter of the petitioner as observed above. (iii) A contention was raised before us that because the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the Executive Magistrate who 4 is within the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny committee, Nashik, it is the Caste scrutiny committee, Nashik which has jurisdiction to decide the validity of that certificate. As we are directing reconsideration of the entire matter, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to enter into this controversy whether the Caste Scrutiny committee, Nashik has jurisdiction or the Caste Scrutiny committee, Thane has jurisdiction. In our opinion, as the caste certificate which is to be verified is issued by the Executive Magistrate who is within the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, it will be appropriate to direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik to reconsider the issue. For that purpose the petitioner shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik with a copy of this order after a period of four weeks from today. The Caste scrutiny committee, Thane shall at a request being made by the Caste Scrutiny committee, Nashik remit the record to the Caste Scrutiny committee and thereafter, the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of aforesaid facts. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 5 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ---