1 WP NO.749/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD //UNREPORTED/ WRIT PETITION NO.749 of 2011 Date of decision:4/7/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.B.BHOSALE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B.DESHMUKH 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/749-11wp 2 WP NO.749/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.749 OF 2011 Raju Gangadhar Gopulwad, Age: 21 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. At post Aurala, Post Salegaon, Tq. Naigaon (Kh), Dist. Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary. 2. Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune Dist. Pune Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.Mahesh S.Deshmukh, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Standing Counsel, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R.Nikam, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE & S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: July 4th, 2011 *** 3 WP NO.749/2011 JUDGMENT: (Per S.B.Deshmukh, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No.1 - the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, dated August 30th, 2010, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner, as belonging to "Mannervarlu", Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner was admitted to D.Ed. Course against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. The tribe certificate of the petitioner was forwarded for its verification. The Scrutiny Committee, after following the procedure, invalidated the social status claimed by the present petitioner by its order dated August, 30th, 2010. 3. Principal ground of challenge to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, in this writ petition is in respect of constitution of the Scrutiny Committee itself. It is contended that one Mr. Waghmare (Shirurkar), Law Officer of respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee and Shri 4 WP NO.749/2011 S.G.Rathod, Junior Executive Officer, in the office of respondent Scrutiny Committee could not have been conferred with the status of the Member Secretary and Member, respectively, in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 and Rules of 2003 thereunder read with notification published in the Official Gazette, as Deputy Director (Research) and Research Officer/Senior Officer, since Senior Research Officers are only entitled to hold the posts of Member Secretary and Member, respectively. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee. Both of them agree that Writ Petition No.6505/2010 has been considered and this Court has passed an order setting aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating social status claim made by the petitioner, in that writ petition. There also, similar challenge was raised regarding improper/illegal constitution of respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. Copy of the said order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6505/2010 is made available to us. It is marked "X" for identification, and is taken on record. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have seen that there also similar was the challenge raised and, after hearing the parties, this Court 5 WP NO.749/2011 has disposed of the writ petition, by quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee on 26th June, 2010, and the matter was remitted back to the existing Committee at Aurangabad with further directions. 5. For the reasons which we have recorded in Writ Petition No.6505/2010, in our opinion, present writ petition also can be disposed of by following order. (i) the order passed by respondent no.1 - the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, on August 30th, 2010, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The case is remitted to the existing Committee at Aurangabad. (iii) Respondent no.1 Committee shall decide the tribe claim afresh on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) All contentions of the parties are kept open. 6 WP NO.749/2011 The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.1 Committee on July, 19th, 2011, with copy of this order. Rule made absolute in above terms. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) ... AGP/749-11wp