1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6662 OF 2007 Jagannath s/o Baburao Waghmare, Age-47 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Matola, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Vice Chairman, Kasmira Sadan, Sation Road, Aurangabad, 2) Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board Distribution Company, Nilanga, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.M. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2010. 2 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 submits that he is working with Maharashtra State Electricity Board since 1993. The Petitioner's caste claim was forwarded in the year 2002, for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as the Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mahadev Koli". The Scrutiny Committee verified the caste claim of the Petitioner and by order dated 27th February 2007, invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. Against the said order, present Petition is filed. 3. This Writ Petition is pending since the year 2007. As usual, number of adjournments 3 occurred and finally the Petition is being heard today. 4. The basic contention raised by learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni on behalf of the Petitioner is, that appropriate opportunity was not provided to the Petitioner. Copy of vigilance cell report was not served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner could not therefore, lead evidence in his favour, due to which the Petitioner is prejudiced. 5. The learned counsel Shri. Patil for the Scrutiny Committee produced original record before us. Shri. Patil, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was aware of reference of his caste claim. For five years the Petitioner did not bother to verify as to what has happened to his caste claim. Therefore, blaming the Committee by the Petitioner, is not justified. 6. Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the 4 notices which were received from the Scrutiny Committee, were accordingly forwarded to the Petitioner. The counsel on instructions, submits that notices were served on the Petitioner. 7. We have perused the original record and the documents placed on record by learned counsel Shri. Bajaj. It is stated that the Petitioner is still in service and has been even promoted. There is some dispute whether the Petitioner has been promoted as a candidate from reserved category or open category, which we do not address at this stage, as it is not germane for our purpose. 8. Considering the facts of the case and the pleadings raised, we find that the Petitioner could be provided with one more opportunity to put up his case, to avoid any prejudice to the Petitioner. At the same time, we observe that it was responsibility of the Petitioner too, to contact the office of the Scrutiny Committee and verify as to what had happened to his caste claim. 5 These are corresponding responsibilities, which the parties have to remember. At the same time, in view of the fact that the service of notices and reports being prime responsibility of the Scrutiny Committee, there should be record available in respect of service of the same on the Petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of the parties and to observe complete fairness and transparency, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. It is really disturbing that the caste claim which was referred in the year 2002, still could not achieve finality inspite of 8 to 9 years were consumed in the process. 9. For the reasons stated above, impugned order dated 27th February, 2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 26th August, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner undertake to co-operate with the Committee. The copy of vigilance report shall be served on the 6 Petitioner on 26th August, 2010. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter shall grant fifteen days time to the Petitioner, to file his reply to the vigilance report. The Petitioner is entitled to lead evidence in support of his caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee is entitled to re-assess, verify the caste claim of the Petitioner afresh, in its exercise of powers as conferred under the relevant law. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter shall dispose of the caste claim of the Petitioner on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law and the norms laid down in that behalf, by passing a brief reasoned order. 10. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to complete this exercise within six months from the date of appearance of the Petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. 11. All issues are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner. 7 . Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp6662.07