1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3930 OF 2009 Anna s/o Dada Ohal - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Kaviraj s/o Bhagirath Wagh & others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VD Salunke,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.DS Mali, Adv. h/for Mr.SB Talekar,Adv. for Respondent No.1; Mr.BN Patil, Adv. for Resp.Nos.2 and 3; Mr.KS Patil,AGP for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 27th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of learned Presiding Officer of the College and University Tribunal, rejecting his claim and contention to get appointment in Respondent No.2- College. The principal contention before the Tribunal was, the petitioner/appellant was not belonging to a reserved category, however, that has been blasted by virtue of Caste Validity 2 Certificate issued by the Competent authority dated 8th March, 2009, which has not been controverted or disputed by the respondent/management. The contention of the selected candidate (Respondent No.1) on this ground could not be countenanced and accepted. If he has any grievance to such certification, he has other remedies. Reference to the father’s caste mentioned in a document of 1936 will not reopen the issue of caste validation in favour of the petitioner. 3) The second contention was, the petitioner was not regularly appointed, may be so. However, he having been appointed initially on 27.03.2000 for a period of two years on probation, continued to activate. Ad hoc committee was appointed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in LPA No.93/2003 on 11.09.2002. In the process of selection, he appeared and the document indicates that the petitioner was at Serial No.5 in the category of the scheduled castes candidates. Surreptitiously, name of Respondent No.1 is interpolated in the list of appointed candidates, thereby excluding rights, which were conferred upon the petitioner to get an appointment as a peon. The finding of the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not surfacing correct legal position, vis-a-vis the documents, which 3 were tendered. The ad hoc committee had the authority to appoint, as to have day-to-day function of the institution, mostly under the order. The order, certainly calls interference. The petitioner be treated as a peon by process of appointment and the Respondent/management to discharge the liability of releasing his salaries, as in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the affiant – Prakash s/o Dattatraya Deshpande, Principal, Belapur Education Society, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, in unequivocal terms, accepted the appointment and status of the petitioner with the management as a peon and even belonging to scheduled tribe category. 4) In view of the above facts, writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for appointment. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/