(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2795 OF 2007 Harishchandra s/o. Pandurang Ikile, Aged : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Old Quarter No.11, Vishnupuri Campus, SRTMU, Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Its Secretary, Tribe Dev. Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32). 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (Through Its Member - Secretary). 3. The Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Latur. 4. The Collector, Latur. 5. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University (Through Its Registrar), Dnyanteerth, Vishnupuri, Nanded. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. U.R. Awate, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate, instructed by Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is working as a Peon in Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, since 30th July 1999. The Dean of the University (3) forwarded the caste (tribe) certificate of the petitioner, along with necessary documents, to the Scrutiny Committee with a view to have the caste (tribe) claim of the petitioner verified. The Scrutiny Committee has rejected the petitioner's tribe claim to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe, and aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter was fixed for hearing before the Committee on 31st January 2007. The petitioner was heard. However, before affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner was not served with a copy of the Vigilance Cell report. The grievance, thus, is that after the hearing was concluded, the petitioner was served with the report of the Vigilance Cell, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity to object to the report and/or to afford explanation in that regard. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Committee has made available the original record for our perusal. The record reveals that the matter was fixed on 31st January 2007, when the Vigilance Cell report was served on the petitioner. After 31st January 2007, the matter was never fixed for hearing. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee, that the Scrutiny Committee waited for reasonable time and then passed an order. (4) 5. We have no iota of doubt, that before hearing the petitioner, he ought to have been served with a copy of the Vigilance Cell report and reasonable opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to file his objection to the said report. As in our view, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is wholly unsustainable in law. 6. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Committee is liable to be set aside. The matter will have to be remanded back to the Committee for a de novo enquiry from the stage of permitting the petitioner to file his objection / reply to the Vigilance Cell report and thereafter to proceed with affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then decide the matter on merit. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that reply / objection to the Vigilance Cell report will be filed within a period of six weeks from today. He further makes a statement that notice from the Scrutiny Committee be dispensed with and the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20th April 2010. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. (5) (i) The impugned order dated 28-2-2007 passed by the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Committee for a de novo enquiry from the stage of permitting the petitioner to file his objection / reply to the Vigilance Cell report and thereafter to proceed with affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then decide the matter on merit. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to file his reply / objection to the Vigilance Cell report. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20th April 2010 and file the objection / reply to the Vigilance Cell report. (iii) Notices from the Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner stands dispensed with, as the petitioner has undertaken to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20th April 2010. (iv) The Scrutiny Committee shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law and on its own merit, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, after the reply / objection to the Vigilance Cell report is filed by the petitioner on 20th April 2010. (6) 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2795