1 382111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3821 OF 2011 Sunil Ramchandra Beske ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 16TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Only two contentions have been pressed before us: The first contention is that the regime of subjecting the candidates to scrutiny is only applicable to employees in Bank of India in Maharashtra, on account of State law in that behalf. In the rest of the States in India, the regime followed is only of verification, and not of scrutiny. We are not impressed by this submission. In the first place, no factual basis has been placed before us. 2 382111 3. Secondly, the requirement of scrutiny of caste claim is being uniformly followed, and all concerned are obliged to comply with that requirement, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case, which is a law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no substance in this submission. 4. The argument of discrimination cannot be permitted on the basis that the Government servants of other States are not required to undergo the scrutiny procedure. No case has been made out to even remotely suggest that the Bank of India, which is the employer of the petitioner, has adopted two different modules for the employees of the Bank. The argument of discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner is, therefore, devoid of merits. 5. The second contention is that, even if the procedure adopted against the petitioner regarding Caste Claim Certificate is to be upheld, at best, the finding of the Scrutiny Committee would mean that the petitioner belongs to Koli Community, and not Koli Mahadeo Community. In that case, the petitioner would be entitled to be treated as 3 382111 belonging to Other Backward Class, as Koli Community is notified as O.B.C. This argument clearly overlooks that the petitioner had secured employment under the category of Scheduled Tribe, and not Other Backward Class. That has been found to be a false claim made by the petitioner, which is the basis for taking action against him. The fact that Koli Community is included in the list of Other Backward Class will not be of any avail to the petitioner. Hence, even the second contention does not commend to us. 6. Accordingly, this petition should fail, and the same is dismissed. 7. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that, at least, some indulgence can be shown to the petitioner by calling upon the employer to convert the order of dismissal into order of removal. Even this argument does not commend to us, for the simple reason that the action taken against the petitioner is on account of the charge that he falsely made his claim against the post, which was earmarked for Scheduled Tribe, even though he did not belong to that community. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.