1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No.2463 OF 2011 (Ashok Laxmanrao Nimje .vs. State and Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011. Heard Mr.S.M.Ukey, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.D.M.Kale, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. for respondent no.3. We do not find it necessary to embark upon merits of the controversy as the petitioner, who has studied in a School at Wardha from 1.7.1966 as per the record produced by him and procured caste certificate in 1977, later on got employment and the caste certificate submitted for validation has been rejected by the impugned order on 4.10.2010 only on the ground that this basic 1977 document is issued by an incompetent Authority. The Scrutiny Committee has found that the petitioner ought to have procured that certificate from Yavatmal which is, according to the Committee, his native place. Mr.S.M.Ukey, Adv. for the petitioner has contended that the father of petitioner 2 migrated to Wardha district in 1945 itself. He is relying upon some documents to substantiate that contention as, according to him, had the petitioner been given an opportunity to point out his native place or place of ordinary residence, the petitioner would have very well demonstrated that he belongs to Wardha district only. Mr. P.B.Patil, Adv. for respondent no.3 is disputing this. According to him, the document on record do not show that, on the date of presidential notification, the petitioner or his father were residents of Wardha district. He points out that the petitioner is claiming to be belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The documents and the rival contentions can be looked into by the Scrutiny Committee. However, if the Scrutiny Committee wanted to invalidate caste claim only on the ground that the basic documents submitted to it is not issued by the competent Authority, it should have pointed out that defect to the petitioner and should have given him an opportunity to place his say on record. In a given case, a person like the petitioner may have valid defence even against such observations of Scrutiny Committee. Here, as that opportunity is not given to the petitioner, we quash and set aside the order dt.4.10.2010. 3 The matter be placed before respondent no.3 for giving the petitioner an opportunity in accordance with law to show that the certificate obtained by him from Wardha Authority is legal and needs to be scrutinized by respondent no.3. For that purpose, we direct the petitioner to appear before respondent no.3 on 11.10.2011. Respondent no.3, shall, after giving the petitioner necessary opportunity in this respect, decide that issue within a further period of three months and if it finds that the Certificate, as issued, deserves to be looked into by it, it shall proceed to consider the same on merits within a further period of three months thereafter. The petitioner is already reverted and after hearing the respective Counsel, as we find nothing before us to show that the petitioner has acted with due diligence in the matter of Caste verification, we direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to restore him to the original post (promotional post) forthwith if his caste claim is validated by respondent no.3/Committee. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE jais