wp6444.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6444 OF 2010 Poonam Omprakash Rathod, Age-29 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Thakur Provision, B 5, Giriraj Housing Society, Pandharpur, Post-Valdgaon, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Aurangabad, 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Railway Station Road, Near Devgiri College, Aurangabad, 4) The Principal, Saraswati Bhuwan Education Society, College of Science, Aurangpura, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. wp6444.10 2 ... Shri.A.S. Bayas Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri.S.S. Tope Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri.A.R. Kale Advocate h/f. Shri. A.R. Joshi Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the Petitioner’s caste claim. 3. The basic objection raised by the wp6444.10 3 Petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee which decided caste claim of the Petitioner, was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukt Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes And Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act of 2000’) and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel submitted that Shri. B.V. Shirurkar was in fact law officer, aiding and assisting the Scrutiny Committee but he was made In-charge Member Secretary for some period and in that capacity, he dealt with this matter. 4. Shri. Bayas, learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 8202 of 2010 dated 30th March, 2011, Writ Petition wp6444.10 4 No.10886 of 2010 dated 1st July, 2011 (CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.) and the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat (CORAM: H.S. BEDI, C.J. & V.M. KANANDE, J.) in Writ Petition No.4415 of 2006 dated 5th October, 2006. 5. We have perused the orders passed by this Court, referred above, considered the submissions advanced before us. We find that the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee was not in accordance with the Act of 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the light of the view already adopted by this Court, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and remand the matter back before the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee on 14th November, 2011. The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the wp6444.10 5 Petitioner, on its own merits, after considering available evidence placed before it, within THREE MONTHS from 14th November, 2011. The Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. All issues are kept open. 6. Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11