1 wp10886.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2011 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.1 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date : 1st July, 2011. . The present Petition challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he belongs to the "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner, the Committee, which decided his tribe claim was not constituted in accordance with the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). One of the 2 wp10886.10 members of the Scrutiny Committee was its Law Officer, and not the Deputy Director (Research), who is the Member Secretary of the Committee. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate, the Committee was not properly constituted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at its Principal seat in Writ Petition no. 4415 of 2006 decided on October 5, 2006, in support of this submission. 2. Shri Phatake, the learned Advocate appearing for the Scrutiny Committee vehemently opposes this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the Law Officer was officiating as Member Secretary in the absence of the Deputy Director (Research), and therefore, his appointment was legal. However, we do not think, his submission is sustainable, in view of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of "Sheshappa Chandrappa Natekar and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others" in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2006. The Division Bench has held that the Member Secretary must be a part of the Scrutiny Committee under any circumstances and that an unqualified person, such as the Law Officer cannot be permitted to substitute him. 3 wp10886.10 3. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner points out that today the Committee has been properly constituted, and therefore, the matter should be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee. 4. This is a fair suggestion. We, therefore, remanding the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within three months from today. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 11th July, 2011 at 11 a.m. Till then, the selection of the petitioner as a Conductor should not be cancelled. The Petition is disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, the Civil Application is also disposed of. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp10886.10