1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1243 of 2008 Subhash v. ST Caste Certificate and anr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.D. Harode, Adv for petitioner. Ms S.W.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1. Ms Indira Bodade, AGP for respondent no.2. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 29th July 2008 1. Heard Mr Harode, the learned counsel for petitioner; Ms Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Ms Indira Bodade, the learned AGP for respondent no. 2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by the Collector, Ratnagiri whereby petitioner is terminated from service as Clerk-cum-Typist on the ground of non-submission of caste validity certificate. The following facts are not disputed. 2 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum- Typist on 15.1.1996 from Scheduled Tribe category. Petitioner submitted caste certificate as well as other documentary evidence in support of the same to the respondent no.2. However, respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to submit caste certificate and other documentary evidence in support of the same before the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur and, therefore, all these documents were submitted by petitioner on 8.8.2000 to the said Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Scrutiny Committee failed to complete the verification for long time. In the mean-while, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order and terminated the services of petitioner for non- submission of caste validity certificate and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 1.3.2008. 5. Ms Deshpande, the learned counsel for Scrutiny Committee has submitted that though the Committee has received the caste certificate and other documents submitted by the petitioner, however, in the year 2001, another Caste Scrutiny Committee was constituted at Amravati, and the Government employees who were from the said region, their caste claims were transferred to the said Committee at Amravati for verification. However, in the process of transferring the claims, documents 3 submitted by the petitioner were misplaced and could not be traced and, therefore, the caste claim of the petitioner could not be verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur nor by the Scrutiny Committee at Amravati. 6. Ms Bodade, the learned AGP for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist from the Scheduled tribe category i.e. Koli Mahadeo in the year 1996. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 2002 from the reserved category. Vide letters dated 31.5.2003 and 27.5.2005, the petitioner was requested to submit caste validity certificate within a stipulated period, failing he was informed, that action would be taken against him. Since the petitioner failed to submit the caste validity certificate, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 11.8.2006. The petitioner was once again requested to submit the caste validity certificate and since the petitioner failed to submit the caste validity certificate, the respondent no.2 terminated the services of petitioner by passing the impugned order for non-submission of caste validity certificate. 7. Considered the rival submissions. On the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner submitted caste certificate and other relevant documentary evidence in support of his caste claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee at 4 Nagpur in the year 2000. However, for the reason stated hereinabove, the Caste Scrutiny Committee misplaced those documents and because of that, the caste claim of the petitioner could not be verified. Similarly, in the year 2001, another Caste Scuritny Committee was constituted at Amravati for verification of the caste claim of the people belonging to the said region. Since the petitioner belonged to the said region, it was necessary for the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur to transfer/forward the caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. However, since the documents were misplaced, the caste claim of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Nagpur Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Amravati. In the whole process, we do not find any fault with the petitioner and it is the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur who lost the original caste certificate and other papers submitted by the petitioner and it is the said Committee who is at fault, firstly, for losing the documents submitted by the petitioner and secondly, for not informing the petitioner to submit another set of documents along with fresh caste certificate. However, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 1.3.2008 has terminated the services of the petitioner for non-submission of caste validity certificate. Therefore, we dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions and observations. 8. It is open for the petitioner to submit second set of 5 caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority as well as copies of other documents which the petitioner wishes to rely in order to substantiate his caste claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati within a period of three weeks from today. If the petitioner submits these documents, in that event, the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Amravati is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, according to law and procedure applicable in this regard, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of caste claim. If the Caste Scrutiny Committee validates the caste claim of the petitioner, in that event, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no.2 by submitting representation for the purpose of re-consideration of the order dated 1.3.2008 which is impugned in the present writ petition. If such representation is made by the petitioner to respondent no.2, we direct the respondent no.2 to decide the same according to law. The impugned order shall not come in the way of Competent Authority for re-consideration of the issue, if the petitioner makes representation as permitted by us. Judge. Judge. hsjoshi 6