Writ petition No.1778 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1778 of 2010 Balaji S/o. Prabhakarrao Murkute Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others. Respondents Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order issued by the respondent No.2, dated 27th October, 2009 which according to the petitioner is a termination order. 2] In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent for the post of Pioneer Electrician, the petitioner has submitted an application. The petitioner belongs to N.T. Category, which is recognized as OBC in the State of Maharashtra. However, according to the petitioner, inadvertently in the application form,he has mentioned that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Alongwith the application form, the petitioner had also annexed his caste certificate certifying that he belongs to a nomadic tribe. Writ petition No.1778 of 2010 2 3] An appointment order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner dated 16/1/2009 appointing him on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner, he had also joined and subsequently made a representation that he was erroneously shown as belonging to a scheduled tribe, when, as a matter of fact, he belong to OBC category. 4] By the impugned order dated 27th October, 2009, the petitioner was informed that since his appointment was against a post reserved for scheduled tribe category and since he was not found eligible from the said category, the appointment order stands cancelled. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5] Shri Ashtekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had inadvertently stated in his application form that he belongs to scheduled tribe category, he had immediately rectified the mistake by submitting a representation stating therein that he belongs to OBC category. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and as such, the termination which has been effected without issuing a show cause notice is contrary to the statutory rules. 6] Shri Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary submits, that since the petitioner's appointment was against a post reserved for scheduled tribe, wherein, a lesser height is prescribed than what is Writ petition No.1778 of 2010 3 prescribed for the other category candidates, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed since his height was less than the one which was prescribed for a candidate belonging to other categories. It is submitted that the minimum height prescribed for the candidates belonging to scheduled tribe was 162.2 cm., whereas, for those candidates belonging to OBC category, the same was prescribed as 170 Cm. It is submitted that the height of the petitioner is 166 cm. and as such, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he was entitled to continue on a post reserved for scheduled tribe. 7] From the record, it appears that though the petitioner had inadvertently stated in the application that he belongs to a scheduled tribe, the petitioner, in fact, belongs to a nomadic tribe, which is not a scheduled tribe. The height prescribed for a scheduled tribe candidate is much less than the one prescribed for the candidates belonging to other categories. The height of the petitioner is admittedly less than the one which is prescribed for a candidate belonging to scheduled tribe. In any case, by the impugned order, what has been done is cancellation of the appointment which was given to the petitioner on a post, which was reserved for scheduled tribe. Nothing stigmatic could be found in the petition so as to warrant observance of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the same is summarily dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp Writ petition No.1778 of 2010 4