FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13145 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2011 "Prakash Rajabhau Jankar Vs. Deelip s/o. Bhimrao Deokate and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of grant of interim relief. 2] Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner's entry into service was from the seat reserved for scheduled tribe, inasmuch as, the petitioner was then possessing a certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that subsequently, in 2004, the Scrutiny Committee has found that the petitioner belongs to N.T. (C) category and as such, the petitioner cannot be faulted with having been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, against a post reserved for NT (C) Category. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13145 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2011 "Prakash Rajabhau Jankar Vs. Deelip s/o. Bhimrao Deokate and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] Shri Khandare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the contrary submits that the petitioner's first entry into service was itself on a fraudulent basis, inasmuch as, though he belongs to Hatkar tribe, he obtained a certificate of belonging to . Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that finding that his claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe has not been accepted, the petitioner, now, has obtained an appointment on the basis of N.T.(C) category, which is not permissible and as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the original application filed by the present respondent No.1. 4] Undisputedly, the petitioner's entry into service as on 21.3.1980, on the basis of his claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe, was on the basis of caste certificate issued in his favour on 2nd April, 1979. Petitioner's first promotion as Sub Divisional Officer on 19.12.1992 is also against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. However, it appears that subsequently, due to the Government Resolution issued by the State of Maharashtra in the year 1999, which has found that Harkar, Dhanwar etc. are sub-tribes of Dhangar Nomadic Tribe, the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Nomadic Tribe has been validated by the Divisional FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13145 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2011 "Prakash Rajabhau Jankar Vs. Deelip s/o. Bhimrao Deokate and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati on 21.12.2004. It can thus clearly be seen that the Scrutiny Committee has validated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to NT(C) category. 5] As against this, the respondent's entry into service in the year 1976 is against an open post. Not only this, but the respondent No.1 has, for the first time, obtained a certificate of belonging to NT(C) category on 29th July, 1990. The claim of the respondent No.1 has been validated for the first time in the year 2008. As per the Govt. Resolution dated 17th January, 1999, it would reveal that the State has found that the various sub-tribes of Dhangar are to be included in the category of NT(C) category. It appears that on the basis this Govt. Resolution, validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.12.2004. 6] Shri Khandare, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has not been in a position to point out any document, issued by anybody, which would have the result of invalidating the claim of the petitioner. May be, due to some changes in the Policy of the State Government, the petitioner was, at one point of time, treated as belonging to scheduled tribe and after validity FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13145 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2011 "Prakash Rajabhau Jankar Vs. Deelip s/o. Bhimrao Deokate and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 certificate having been issued by the committee on 21.12.2004, the petitioner was treated as belonging to NT(C) category. 7] The entire premise, on which the learned Tribunal has based its judgment, is that the claim of the petitioner was invalidated. Prima facie, we do not find any foundation for the said conclusion on the basis of material placed before us. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to stay the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, by way of an interim order, we are inclined to stay the order passed by the learned Tribunal and ask the parties to maintain status-quo as on the date of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Needless to state that this order would not come in the way of the respondent authorities in considering the claim of the respondent No.1, for being promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, in accordance with law. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-