1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3088 OF 2007 Rajendra s/o Vasant Waghmare, Age-35 years, Occu:Service, Working as Conductor, at Tuljapur S.T. Depot, R/o-Jamgaon, Tq-Barshi, Dist-Solapur, At present- Tuljapur Depot, Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Collector, Osmanabad, 3) The Executive Magistrate, Osmanabad. 4) The Depot Manager, State Transport Corporation, Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad, 5) The Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation, (M.S.R.T.C.) Osmanabad, 6) The Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Schedule Tribe, Bus Stand Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. V.M. Humbe Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. A.B. Dhongade Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2010. 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 claims that he is working as Bus Conductor with M.S.R.T.C. since the year 1994. It is contended that Petitioner's caste claim was verified by the Scrutiny Committee and by order dated 27th April 2007, the Scrutiny 3 Committee invalidated the claim of the Petitioner. The said order was challenged before this Court in the present Petition. 3. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner did not get proper opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner though received copy of vigilance cell report, but could not file reply to the same. The Scrutiny Committee without granting an opportunity decided the matter, which has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner. 4. The original record was called before us. The learned counsel Shri Phatke, appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the record, submits that the Petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of his claim and therefore the Scrutiny Committee had no other option than to decide the matter on available record. 5. We have perused the record, considered the submissions advanced. In the facts of the 4 case, we find that fresh opportunity is required to be given to the Petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee, allowing him to lead evidence, if any, in support of his caste claim. The Petitioner is entitled to file reply to the vigilance cell report. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter may pass reasoned order in respect of the claim of the Petitioner. 6. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 27th April 2007, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.6 Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 26th July 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner shall be granted two week's time from 26th July 2010, to file reply to the vigilance cell report. The Petitioner is entitled to lead evidence, if any, within reasonable time-frame as determined by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, thereafter, shall dispose of the matter, within THREE MONTHS from 26th July, 2010, on its own 5 merits. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp3088.07