W.P.No.7094 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7094 OF 2009 Shankarsingh Naryansingh Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents Mr A.S.Bayas, Advocate for petitioner Mr P.P.More, A.G.P. for respondents 1, 4 and 5 Mr B.V.Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2 – absent CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd March 2011 PER COURT 1. The petition has been preferred against the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta – Nomadic Tribe. We have perused the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and we are of the view that the Scrutiny Committee as erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee has not accepted the report of the Vigilance Cell, which was submitted before the Committee on 26.9.2006. It appears from this report that the affinity test had been proved and the Vigilance Cell had found that the petitioner did belong to the Rajput Bhamta – Nomadic Tribe. In its decision the Scrutiny Committee has given no reasons to discard the W.P.No.7094 of 2009 2 Vigilance Cell report. All that it has stated is that the report is unacceptable. In our view if the Scrutiny Committee decides to discard any document, including the Vigilance Cell report, it is necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to give reasons for the same. Merely issuing a show- cause notice to the petitioner indicating that it does not accept the Vigilance Cell’s report is not sufficient. The Scrutiny Committee must, in its final decision disclose its reasons for discarding the Vigilance Cell report. 2. In our opinion, therefore, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee must be quashed and set aside. We remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee will decide the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law. While doing so, the Scrutiny Committee will also consider the observations made by Vigilance Cell in its report. The Committee shall decide the matter within three months from today. Till then the respondent No.3 shall not terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has not furnished the validity certificate. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 5th April 2011 at 11.00 a.m. ( S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) (vvr/7094.09wp)