(1) wp717-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2008 Kailas s/o Fakirchand Pawar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Anil S. Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. R.P. Phatke, advocate for the respondent No. 2. .... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23rd JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14th June, 2007, passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has rejected the petitioner's claim that he belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. 2. The main criticism levelled by Mr. Golegaonkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on the impugned order is that the Committee has not passed a reasoned order whereby it (2) wp717-08 could be deciphered why the petitioner's tribe claim has been negatived. He points out that besides one sentence in the order, there is no discussion as to whether the petitioner's traits, characteristics and affinity can be said to be associated with the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. He has brought to our notice the Vigilance Cell Report in which, according to him, the Research Officer has not stated any reasons for accepting the Report. The other ground contended by the learned advocate is that the Scrutiny Committee has incorrectly rejected the petitioner's contention that his paternal relatives were, in fact, issued certificates indicating that they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. 3. We have perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and the Report of the Vigilance Cell, and in our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee has not given any reason for refusing to accept the petitioner's contention. In Writ Petition No. 5885/2009, the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Mhatre, J.) was a party, has decided a similar issue on 23rd March, 2011. The nature of the (3) wp717-08 Vigilance Cell Report has been discussed and the reasons for including the Research Officer in the Vigilance Cell has also been noted thus : "Therefore, from perusal of Rule-10 of the Rules of 2003, the Research Officer is included in the Vigilance Cell. The very purpose of the Research Officer in the Vigilance Cell is to invite his comments about the social status of the candidate who claims that he belongs to a particular tribe. From careful perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report, it appears that the said Report does not refer to any comments of the Research Officer. The very purpose to have inquiry by the Vigilance Cell is to find out the social status of the candidate. It is expected that the Vigilance Officer should examine the parent, guardian, or the candidate in relation to their caste, etc., or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report. However, in the present case, the Vigilance Cell Report is silent about the comments of the Research Officer and also it appears that the mother of the petitioner are guardian or the candidate or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate are not interrogated by the Vigilance Officer by (4) wp717-08 visiting their places. Therefore, in our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee has not properly considered the Vigilance Cell Report and also failed to assign separate reasons for not accepting the Vigilance Cell Report which is in favour of the petitioner. As discussed hereinabove, the Scrutiny Committee has also not properly considered and assigned independent reasons for not accepting the contentions of the petitioner that the tribe claim of the applicant's cousin namely Sanjaykumar Arjunrao Saindane is validated by the Scrutiny Committee." 4. In our opinion, therefore, the Vigilance Cell Report in the present case leaves much to be desired. The Research Officer has merely stated that he concurs with the Report. The Report does not indicate what are the traits, characteristics, or rituals, etc. followed by the petitioner and his family. Therefore, the petitioner could not have effectively contended before the Scrutiny Committee that the Vigilance Cell Report was incorrect for specific reasons. Unless the reasons are disclosed, great injustice would be caused to the petitioner (5) wp717-08 while appearing before the Scrutiny Committee as he would be severely handicapped. 5. Apart from this, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have mentioned why it does not accept the petitioner's contention that he belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe while considering the Vigilance Cell Report. The mere statement that the Vigilance Inquiry has been conducted would not be sufficient. 6. The other contention that the petitioner's relatives had been issued Validity Certificates, has not been considered by the Committee. The Committee, it appears, has mentioned that his relatives are from the maternal side and, therefore, cannot be included in "blood relatives". This is an incorrect observation made by the Committee as the relatives who were issued validity certificates are on the petitioner's father's side of the family. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the (6) wp717-08 respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee to conduct a fresh inquiry. The petitioner shall be present before the Committee on 11th July, 2011 at 11 a.m. The Committee will decide the petitioner's tribe claim within six months from today. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the Civil Application No. 721/2011 does not survive and stands disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/wp717-08