1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2154 OF 1996. Dr.Sachinkukmar Vasantrao Wankhede,Age 26 years, Residing at 91, Shivkripa, Shivparvati Nagar, Near Deopur I.T.I. Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nasik. 3. The Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 28, Queen's Garden, Pune-411 001. 4. The Dean, B.J.Medical College, Pune. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 05.07.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Thakur - Scheduled Tribe and the order dated 17.11.1983, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. Mr.Golegaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner's real brother namely Sunil has been validated by order dated 30.11.1992 passed by Divisional Commissioner in appeal, so also the claim of his real uncle namely Gulab Bhagwan has been validated on 21.8.1987. He, therefore, submits that petitioner is entitled to be declared as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel vehemently opposes and submits that in case of "Raju Ramsingh Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and 3 others" Mh.L.J. 1, has held that merely because relative of claimant is held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the claimant is not entitled to grant validity as a matter of right. 4. The Apex Court in the said judgment cited supra has observed thus : "We do not mean to suggest an opinion formed by the Committee as regards the caste of the near relative of the applicant would be wholly irrelevant, but, at the same time, it must be pointed out that only because, by mistake or otherwise, a member of his family had been declared to be belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the same by itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another Committee while examining the case of other members of the family at some details. If it is found that in granting a certificate in favour of a member of a family, vital evidences had 4 been ignored, it would be open to the Committee to arrive at a different finding." In the present case also, we find that though the claim of the petitioner's real brother is validated, it is validated only on the ground that petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Thakur', whereas the Committee has proceeded on the premise that only Thakars are entitled status of Scheduled Tribe. 5. However, in bunch of writ petitions being W.P.No.1176/1994 alongwith companion petitions decided by us on 21.6.2010, we had taken view that wherever the caste claims were scrutinised by the Committees which were not in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and others" AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, the claim of such persons were required to be reverified by duly constituted Scrutiny Committees and that too after following the procedure in accordance with 5 law. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner also deserves to be given an opportunity of reestablishing his claim. 6. The impugned order dated 23.3.1993 and 17.11.1993 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar, for considering the claim of the petitioner on its own merits. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 19.7.2010 and the Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from the date of his appearance. 7. It is needless to state that as observed by the Apex Court, the fact that the petitioner's brother's claim has been validated by the Divisional Commissioner shall not be ignored by the Committee. However, at the same time, it is further observed that the Committee would not be wholly influenced by the fact that the petitioner's brother's claim has been validated but would be deciding the matter on the basis of the evidence that would be submitted and 6 on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Committee. 8. The petitioner has also filed Civil Application for directions that since he has been selected by nomination for the post of Associate Professor by the M.P.S.C., he should be directed to be given an appointment on the said post. Since, the petitioner's claim is already invalidated, we are not inclined to issue the directions as sought for. However, we make it clear that in the event, the petitioner's claim is validated, he shall be forthwith given an appointment on the post to which he is selected. It is further made clear that interim relief which is operating in the present petition, shall continue to operate till decision by the Committee and for a further period of four (4) weeks, in the event an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp215496 7