1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1712 OF 2006 Dilip s/o Narsingrao Yerewad, Aged 36 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Sagroli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through, its Secretary, Tribe Dev.Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32). 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. (Through it's Member Secretary) 3. The Tahsildar and Tq. Executive Magistrate, Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. 4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. Mali, Advocate holding for Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for State Respondents. Shri.Pravin S. Patil,Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 23-09-2005 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the said Committee"), invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim as "Malhar Koli", Scheduled Tribe. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected for the post of Forest Guard under the special drive on the basis of interview held on 31-01-2004. The petitioner was selected against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, his tribe claim was referred to the said Committee for the purpose of verification immediately after his selection for the post of Forest Guard vide letter dated 03-02-2004. The 3 said Committee by its order dated 23-09-2005 rejected the petitioner's claim as "Malhar Koli", Scheduled Tribe. 4. Shri. Mali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the said Committee is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Committee failed to provide copy of the inquiry report of the Vigilance Cell to the petitioner. For want of copy of the Vigilance Cell report, the petitioner could not file his reply in detail to justify his claim as "Malhar Koli". 5. He further submits that the petitioner by letter dated 11-08-2005 informed the said Committee that the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 24-07-2005 is not acceptable to the petitioner because the same was submitted without conducting full inquiry. 6. He further submits that the Vigilance Cell 4 although had recorded statements of certain persons including that of his father, those statements were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the report of the inquiry. As a result, the petitioner was unable to offer explanation and therefore, denied opportunity of being heard. 7. He further submits that the said Committee mainly relied on entries in the school record of Smt. Kashibai Maroti Yerwad, Nagnath Maroti Yerwad and Khusal Narsingrao Yerwad for rejecting his tribe claim. But the said Committee failed to take into consideration that none of these persons are related to the petitioner. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the said Committee was wrong in showing Smt. Kashinath Maroti Yerwad as petitioner's aunt or Nagnath Yerwad and Khushal Yerwad as petitioner's uncles as persons related to them. He submits that these persons are not related to the petitioners and therefore documents 5 collected by the Vigilance Cell cannot be relied by the said Committee to decide the petitioner's tribe claim. 9. On these grounds, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23-09-2005 passed by the said Committee is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Shri. P.S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Committee vehemently opposed the present Writ Petition on the ground that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case before the said Committee. Not only that the Committee supplied copy of Vigilance Cell report alongwith all the documents to the petitioner. 11. He further submits that the said Committee has considered all the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell at the time of deciding the petitioner's claim. He further submits that it is 6 crystal clear from the Vigilance Cell report that the petitioner's brother and sister's school record bearing Admission Registration No. 460 and 611 was rightly rejected by the said Committee on the ground that in caste column 'Malhar' word is in different ink and handwriting. He submits that the petitioner cannot claim the validity certificate from the said Committee on interpolated documents. 12. He submits that the petitioner did not come before the said Committee with clean hands as the Vigilance Cell brought school record of the petitioner and his blood relatives showing that same were interpolated with malafide intention. 13. We have heard both the Counsel at length. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee produced original file. We have gone through the original file produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee. 7 14. The first contention of the petitioner that the said Committee did not supply a copy of the Vigilance Cell report, is not acceptable one. It is specifically stated in the impugned order in Para-3 that the Committee has called for the say of the petitioner on the enquiry report of the Vigilance Officer vide committee's notice dated 29-07-2005 and 05-08-2005. Pursuant to the said letters, the petitioner has filed his reply on 10-08-2005 and 14-09-2005. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner about non service of the inquiry report of the Vigilance Cell is not acceptable and same is rejected. 15. Second objection of the petitioner is that the Committee has not given fair hearing to the petitioner before deciding his application. This objection is also not sustainable because the Committee had fixed personal hearing on 10-08-2005 and 14-09-2005 and on those dates, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted his say. Therefore, there is no 8 substance in the petitioner's contention that the Committee did not give him fair hearing. 16. In respect of the petitioner's objection to the Vigilance Cell report dated 24-07-2005 as per his letter dated 11-08-2005 is also not maintainable. We have gone through the original file produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee. We find that the Vigilance Cell made inquiry and collected several documents. Those documents clearly show that the contention raised by the petitioner in his letter dated 11-08-2005 is not sustainable in law. 17. In the present case, the petitioner failed in affinity test. The documents on record pertaining to the petitioner's brother and sister's school record bearing Admission Registration No. 460 and 611 show interpolation. In the remark column, it is specifically stated that "In caste column Malhar word wrote in different ink and handwriting". Therefore, this document cannot be 9 considered for considering the petitioner's case. It is crystal clear from the original record of the present case as produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of his case. 18. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the present petition to interfere with the impugned order dated 23-09-2005 passed by the said Committee. 19. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 20. Rule discharged. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/wp1712.06