1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8719 OF 2007 Gopinath Kisan Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The short question which arise for our determination is as to whether the petitioner deserves to be given a second opportunity to get his caste claim re-examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 3. The petitioner is employed with respondent 2 nos.3 as a ’Safaiwala’ and claim that he belongs to caste ’Thakar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. It is the case of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion when his caste certificate was forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, he was pressurised to withdraw his caste claim and that is why in para 4 of the impugned order it has been recorded that "also the applicant has given in writing that he is taking his tribe claim back and he has no any complaint in his matter". This was at the stage when the Vigilance Cell Report was served on the petitioner and when he was called upon to file his say and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has recorded that the applicant was unable to state in respect of the customs and traditions prevalent in their community and gave such an endorsement on the Sunavani Patrika on 29.6.07. 4. Mr.Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was pressurised and influenced to do so and was also furnished with the copy of the Government Resolution by the Committee in order to give him an 3 understanding that his service stands protected. 5. Though the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not support the contention of Mr.Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the Caste Scrutiny Committee can be directed to re-examine the caste claim of the petitioner from the stage of hearing him in response to the Vigilance Cell report as that would meet the ends of Justice and the petitioner should not suffer for whatever follies he has committee. We therefore, direct the petitioner to appear for before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 20.02.08 at 1100 hours before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. On his appearing before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Scrutiny Committee would re-examine the matter from the stage as aforesaid and proceed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. We will highly appreciate if the Caste Scrutiny Committee takes a decision in the matter within a period of 4 weeks from the date of first 4 appearance of the petitioner subject to cooperation extended by the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to cooperate with the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Scrutiny Committee can proceed ex-parte in the matter. We further make it clear that the Caste Scrutiny Committee would not be influenced by his earlier order and would give fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deal with the case of the petitioner in an objective manner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )