1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.530 OF 2008 Gangadhar s/o Vitthalrao Anantwad, Age: 31 years, R/o. Lohegaon, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Beed Division, Beed, District Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. Rule. 2 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19-08-2005 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been selected for the post of Conductor against the Scheduled Tribe Category by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller, Beed Division, Beed, District Beed. Thereafter, the tribe claim of the petitioner has been referred for verification to respondent No.1 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 3 "The Scrutiny Committee"). The Scrutiny Committee by this order dated 19-01-2003 without considering the evidence and Vigilance Report, invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19-01-2003 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5089 of 2003 in this Court to quash and set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. This Court (Coram : A.P. Deshpande & Vasanti A.Naik, JJ.) by oral judgment dated 23-06-2005 set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 19-01-2003 and remanded back the matter for de novo enquiry and decision afresh. 7. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23-06-2005, the Scrutiny Committee called fresh Vigilance Report. The Vigilance Officer has filed Vigilance re-inquiry report dated 03-08-2005 before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee issued notice dated 4 03-08-2005 to the petitioner of hearing of the application on 10-08-2005. Alongwith the said notice, the Scrutiny Committee also forwarded re- inquiry Vigilance Report to the petitioner. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the said report was received by the petitioner just one day before 10-08-2005 when the matter was kept for hearing before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee without giving any opportunity passed the impugned order dated 19-08-2005 rejecting the petitioner's application. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Scrutiny Committee has sent Vigilance Report dated 03-08-2005 to the petitioner by Post and simultaneously issued notice of hearing which was posted on 10-08-2005. He submits that the notice and Vigilance Report was received by the petitioner just before one day when the hearing was fixed and as the petitioner was residing at 5 remote place in Nanded District, could not appear before the Scrutiny Committee and requested to grant some time for submitting reply to the Vigilance Report and for hearing but the Scrutiny Committee did not grant time and without hearing the petitioner passed the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee submits that though full opportunity was offerred to the petitioner, the petitioner failed and neglected to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee at the time of hearing. He further submits that the Scrutiny Committee has considered several documents including admission registration extract of the petitioner's real cousin dated 11-07-1966 in which the tribe/caste has been written as "Mannurwar". In view of these facts, there is no substance in the present petition and same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6 11. We have heard both the sides at length. We have perused original file produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee. It is admitted fact that the Scrutiny Committee forwarded copy of the Vigilance inquiry report dated 03-08-2005 to the petitioner and hearing was fixed on 10-08-2005. A copy of the Vigilance Report was received by the petitioner one day before the date of hearing. 12. On the date of hearing, the petitioner could not reach the office of the Scrutiny Committee. He appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on the next date and requested some time to file his reply. Without considering the petitioner's request, the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order dated 19-08-2005 rejecting the petitioner's claim. 13. On considering the above facts and the circumstances under which the petitioner could not 7 submit his reply and the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner, we find that the rules of natural justice requires that the petitioner should be given opportunity to file reply and thereafter the Scrutiny Committee after giving opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, pass final order, according to law. 14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 19th August, 2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 15. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 1st September, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner is entitled to file reply to the second vigilance cell report, which is already served on the Petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee shall not allow the Petitioner to lead any further evidence. 8 16. The Scrutiny Committee shall pass final order on the caste claim of the Petitioner on the available evidence, after hearing the Petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioner before it. 17. Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. 18. No order as to costs. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/wp530.08