1 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6227 OF 2009 Kerba s/o Dashrath Koli ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr B.B. Yenge, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr Pravin S. Patil, Standing Counsel for respondent no.3 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 22nd November, 2011 PER COURT : Heard. 2. This is second round for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Verification Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev " - 2 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 Scheduled Tribe. By judgment and order dated 10th December, 2008, in Writ Petition No.2627 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Naresh H. Patil & S.R. Dongaonkar, JJ.), observed in paragraph 14 as follows :- "Petitioner is entitled to tender additional documents and original service record of Jaywanta, who, according to petitioner, is related to him, and any other record which petitioner desires to submit. Petitioner shall appear before Committee on 29.12.2008, at 11.00 a.m., with all available documents, record, evidence and reply to vigilance cell report, if any, and submit the same before the Committee. The Committee thereafter would hear petitioner and pass final order in the caste claim proceedings within two months from 29.12.2008 on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law. All issues are kept open. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter." 3. The petitioner appeared before the Committee consequent to the order passed by this Court and submitted documents. The Committee called for report from the vigilance cell in respect of those documents. After hearing the petitioner, the Committee for the second time passed order of invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. 3 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 4. The basic contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he was not provided opportunity to reply to the report submitted by vigilance cell for the second time. The petitioner had produced photo copy of the service record of his great grand-father, wherein it was mentioned that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev". The petitioner further places reliance on the copy of validity granted to his cousin. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4605 of 2009, dated 29.9.2011. We have perused the same. 5. The learned Counsel for the Committee submitted that the record produced by the petitioner is against his claim. The petitioner's father's school record does not support the petitioner's claim. The great grand-father's service record could not be relied upon as original record was not traced out in the office and the great grand-father was not the real great grand-father but cousin. Learned Counsel submitted that the second vigilance report is not against the petitioner. Therefore, even if copy of the same was not served on the petitioner, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner's interest. In the light of the order passed by this Court earlier, full opportunity was given to the petitioner. 4 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent employer - M.S.R.T.C. submits that an application was filed for vacating the interim relief granted by this Court, due to which the petitioner was continued in service. The Counsel submits that after the initial order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed on 18.8.2009 the Corporation issued an order dated 7.9.2009 indicating therein that the services of the petitioner would come to an end from 7.9.2009. According to the learned Counsel since then the petitioner was not in service. The present petition was filed on 8.9.2009. The fact of termination of the petitioner from service is not disclosed by the petitioner before this Court and probably, therefore, this Court passed orders on 18.9.2009 that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner in the meantime. The Counsel further submitted that after the order passed by this Court granting interim relief on 18.9.2009, by communication dated 5.2.2010 the respondent - Corporation asked the petitioner to remain present in the office for joining his service in the light of interim order passed by this Court and accordingly the petitioner joined. 7. We have considered the original record placed before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the Committee, heard the submissions and perused the judgments. Prima facie we are of the 5 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 view that the petitioner ought to have disclosed that his services came to an end with effect from 7.9.2009. In fact, the respondent Corporation has filed Civil Application No.12318 of 2010 seeking vacation of the interim relief, pointing out that the order of termination was suppressed by the petitioner. 8. We have perused the record and the order passed by the Committee. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Committee. The school record of the petitioner and his brother refer their caste as "Hindu Koli". The Committee has also found that even the school record of the year 1956 in respect of relatives of the petitioner shows that they belong to "Koli" and not "Mahadev Koli". "Koli" is recognized as Special Backward Class in the State of Maharashtra. The photostat copy of first page of service-book of petitioner's grandfather mentions his caste as "Mahadev Koli" but the petitioner did not submit caste certificate of his grandfather and there is no remark submitted by the Department in respect of his service. The original record was also not traceable in the Tahsil office. In its entirety the Committee was of the view in not placing implicit reliance on the photostat copies. In exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view adopted by the Committee. 6 W.P.No.6227 of 2009 The Committee adopted a reasonable view, which does not call for any interference, according to us. The petition stands dismissed. 9. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay to this order for a period of six weeks. We are not inclined to accede to the request. Stay refused. (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) amj/wp6227.09