1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2851 OF 2011. (Ku. Sunita d/o Shriram Ambedare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri V.G. Wankhede, Adv. for Petitioner. Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri C.S. Kaptan, Adv. for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011. Petitioner came to be appointed on 29.09.2003 as a reserved category candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. However, validity to her caste claim as given by Scrutiny Committee on 02.12.2005 reveals that her caste ‘Gawari’ has been treated as S.B.C. and accordingly validity certificate has been given. Employer thereafter has called upon her to produce validity as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and said communication dated 31.05.2011 is questioned before us. Accordingly, we heard Shri Wankhede, Adv. for petitioner, Shri Kaptan, Adv. for respondent no.2 and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondent no.1 finally. 2 We find that on 15.12.2006 Secretary of respondent no.2 had communicated to petitioner that her appointment was regularized as effected in S.B.C. category and accordingly roster point in roster was also earmarked. There is nothing on record to show that this communication has been either cancelled or withdrawn. Shri Wankhede, has urged that petitioner has not been given any opportunity or notice before taking such decision. In this situation considering the fact that petitioner has put in about eight years of service and has also secured validity as S.B.C., we find that interest of justice would met be with by directing respondent no.2 to extend to her an opportunity of hearing in this respect. It is obvious that if communication dated 15.12.2006 still stands and has not been withdrawn or cancelled the communication dated 31.05.2011 impugned before us is, unwarranted. Accordingly petitioner to appear before the appropriate authority/respondent no.2 and file appropriate reply to the communication dated 31.05.2011 by 10.10.2011. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter proceed to hear petitioner in the light of relevant records and take appropriate decision as early as possible and in any case by 15.11.2011. The petitioner to approach before the Scrutiny Committee 3 if he finds the said decision is adverse to her interest. The petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. Needless to mention that till such decision, respondent no.2 shall continue to petitioner in service. JUDGE JUDGE NSN