1 W.P.No.6145.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6145 OF 2007 Sitaram S/o Rangnath Wadkar, Age 36 years,Occup. Nil R/o Georai(Gungi) Ta.Sillod, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport, Corporation,Aurangabad, 2] Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Through, Member Secretary, Kasmira Sadan, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.M.Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Ranjana D.Reddy,Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri M.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent No.2 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : K.K.TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective counsel of the 2 W.P.No.6145.07 parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th May, 2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad (Hereinafter referred to as “said Committee”) invalidating the petitioner’s caste as “Dhanwar”. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he belongs to “Dhanwar”, which included in Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.2-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation( Hereinafter referred to as “M.S.R.T.C.”) issued advertisement for filling the posts of Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner has applied for job of the helper. He was medically examined and after following due process of law, the respondent No.1- “M.S.R.T.C.” issued appointment letter to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said appointment 3 W.P.No.6145.07 letter the petitioner joined his service as helper on 4th August,1995. 4. As per the terms and conditions of appointment, respondent No.1 M.S.R.T.C. referred the claim of the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe to the said Committee for verification. The said Committee decided the petitioner’s claim about Scheduled tribe against him. Pursuant to the said decision of the said Committee, respondent No.1- M.S.R.T.C. has terminated his services 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st December, 2005 passed by the said committee invaliding the petitioner’s claim and the order passed by the respondent No.1 M.S.R.T.C. terminating the services, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.3547 of 2006 in this High Court. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner contended that part of the enquiry has gone ex- parte, although he filed his reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell, he was not interviewed. 4 W.P.No.6145.07 This is because, the notice for personal interview, which was held on 30th September, 2005, was received by him after expiry of date of interview. This was because, in September, 2005 the petitioner was posted in Kannad Depot, whereas notice was addressed at his native place i.e. Gevrai (Gungi) Ta. Sillod, District Aurangabad, which was received by his father, after expiry of the date fixed for interview. This Court by order dated 5th July, 2006 quashed and set aside the said impugned order dated 31st December, 2005 and remand the matter back to the said Committee for fresh disposal from the stage of personal interview. 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, in previous Writ Petition, the petitioner was called for personal hearing before the said Committee on 12th December,2006, but the petitioner failed to attend. In the interest of justice said Committee called upon the petitioner for personal hearing on another date i. e. 4th January, 2007. After 5 W.P.No.6145.07 following due process of law, the said committee heard the petitioner and decided his case against him holding that the petitioner failed to produce cogent evidence to show that he belongs to “Dhanwar” scheduled Tribe. 7. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said Committee observed that the petitioner has failed to prove mutual affinity without discussing the report of the vigilance cell and without offering any reason. He further submits that the said Committee failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted his own school leaving certificate issued by Headmaster of Vasantrao Naik High School Korpadi, Jalna vide registration No. 98, date of admission 27th June, 1983, wherein the caste is mentioned as “Dhanwar” and xerox copy of the School leaving certificate issued by Head Master 6 W.P.No.6145.07 of Zilla Parishad School Takali vide registration No. 432, date of admission 18th July, 1980, wherein caste is mentioned as “Dhanwar”, the said Committee held against the petitioner. In the above mentioned mentioned facts and circumstances, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17th May, 2007 passed by the said Committee is against the justice, equity, good conscience and same is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the present Writ petition on the ground that the said Committee considered all the documents placed on record by the petitioner and also had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in support of his claim. In spite of that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence and/or able to satisfy the said Committee about his claim. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits 7 W.P.No.6145.07 that the petitioner's basic school record shows his caste as “Dhangar” which is recognized as Nomadic Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. He submits that the petitioner has not produced any valuable proof or record prior to 1950 in support of his claim. In these facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no substance in the present petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. 9. We have heard both the counsel at length. It is to be noted, in this case that, though the said committee gave sufficient chance to the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim, the petitioner failed to do so. Not only that his own school record shows that his caste as “Dhangar”, which is recognized as Nomadic Schedule Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The said Committee also recorded that the petitioner failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage towards “Dhanwar” scheduled tribe. Not only that 8 W.P.No.6145.07 the petitioner has not produced any valuable record and proof prior to 1950 in support of his claim. Considering the evidence on record produced by the petitioner and affinity test, the said Committee came to the conclusion that the information furnished by the petitioner about traditional occupation, god, goddesses, surnames, custom, culture, following etc. are not associated with real schedule tribe community people, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to caste verification certificate as “Dhanwar”. 10. We are satisfied with the reasoning given by the said Committee for rejecting the petitioners' caste verification certificate. As the Committee considered all the documents on record as well as affinity test, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with decision of the Committee in exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above mentioned facts and 9 W.P.No.6145.07 circumstances, we do not find any substance in the present petition and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 12. Rule discharged. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK