1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4292/2008 Mohan Mahadeo Chordekar Petitioner Vs. State of Mahrashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.K.N.Kandekar for the Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar,G.P.for Respondent no.1 Mr.Abhay Patki,Special Counsel for Respondent no.2 Mr.P.K.Rele,Sr.Counsel i/b Piyush Shah for Res.3 & 4 CORAM : V.C.Daga,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date : 24th February,2009. P.C. . Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 1] Learned Government Pleader,on behalf of respondent no.1, Mr.Abhay Patki, Special Counsel for Respondent no.2, Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 waive service. 2] This petition is directed against the order dated 30/3/2002 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner for the first time came to know about the rejection of the caste claim through a letter dated 18/2/2008 written by the Central Office of Central Bank of India. Consequently the petition appears to have been filed in the month of April,2008.Considering this factual aspect one can hardly say that there is delay in filing the petition. The contention raised by 2 the respondent no.2 that the petition suffers from latches needs to be over-ruled. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that telegraphic notice dated 17/10/2001 alleged to have been sent by the respondent no.2,Scrutiny Committee, was never received by him. In order to counter this submission, learned counsel appearing for respondent produced original record of Scrutiny Committee for our perusal. No doubt the record contains office copy of the telegram sent to the petitioner,however,no date is seen on that copy.There is no material to show that at any time this notice was put in to transmission or telegraphic notice was sent . Mere office copy without any material evidencing transmission of this telegram cannot be relied upon. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from breach of principle of natural justice. The impugned order is,therefore,liable to be quashed and set aside. 4] Respondent no.2 is expected to know that the Committee is dealing with the rights of the reserved category candidates. They are expected to maintain their record in appropriate manner . The manner in which the record is maintained shows the absolute negligence on the part of the Committee in maintenance of its record. The petitioner is harassed and un-necessarily driven to file this petition.The impugned order is clearly in breach of principles of natural justice. 5] In this view of the matter the impugned order is quashed 3 and set aside. The proceedings are remitted back to the respondent no.2 for fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. 6] Needless to mention that the Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner within two months from today by a reasoned order. 7] The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 4th March,2009 alongwith his parents and all relevant documents. On that day the Scrutiny Committee shall hear the petitioner.If the Scrutiny Committee fails to hear the matter the Scrutiny Committee may give another suitable date obtaining the petitioner's signature intimating the next date of hearing. 8] The Scrutiny Committee shall be liable to pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner quantifying a sum of Rs.5,000/- . 9] The Superintendent may fix the responsibility in this behalf and may recover the amount of costs from the officer concerned, who failed to maintain the record properly. 10] The termination order shall be subject to the result of the Scrutiny Committee. 11] Mr.Rele,the senior counsel submits that in the event caste claim is validated the termination order would not be acted upon. 4 12] So far as back wages are concerned it would be open for the bank to consider the question of back wages in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.)