1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5114 OF 2011 Swapnil Vilasrao Maske .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.C.K.Bhangoji i/by Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P.for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 8th November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Bhangoji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Khemani, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 4 and Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. Rule. Learned A.G.P.for Respondent Nos.1 & 4 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur, (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.48 of 2008. By that order, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal preferred 2 by the petitioner. The facts that are relevant and material for disposal of the petition, briefly stated are as follows. 4. The petitioner applied for the post of assistant teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.06.2005. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 intended to fill up the post of assistant teacher which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner applied and was accordingly selected. He was appointed as assistant teacher on 13.06.2005. It is his case that on 12.06.2006 the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 terminated his services. It is against this termination order, he preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 it was contended that the advertisement was published for a filling up the post of assistant teacher which was reserved for scheduled tribe candidate. The validity of the caste certificate dated 27.8.1990 of the petitioner’s father Vilas Ramchandra Maske was referred to the Scrutiny Committee and by order dated 29.09.1994 the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s father does not belong to scheduled tribe category. It was therefore contended that since the claim of the petitioner’s father that he belongs to scheduled tribe was turned down by the 3 Scrutiny Committee and said decision was not challenged by his father, the petitioner cannot claim that he belongs to scheduled tribe category. 6. On the basis of material on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the management cannot be faulted with and consistent with this, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. It is against this order, the petitioner has instituted this petition. 7. Mr.Bhangoji, submitted that the action of the management in terminating services of the petitioner is per se illegal. He submitted that basically before terminating services of the petitioner, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 ought to have referred his caste certificate for verification by the Scrutiny Committee. In the absence of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee on his caste certificate, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 could not have terminated his services. He further submitted that the petitioner's father was appointed against the open category. However while in service he claimed promotion and his case was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee rejected his claim on 29.09.1994. Having regard to Section 10 of the Maharashtra 4 Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000, unless the Scrutiny Committee rejects his caste claim, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not justified in terminating his services. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained caste certificate on 28.06.1991. It is equally not in dispute that his father's claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee and by order dated 29.09.1994 the claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. It is also not in dispute that the said decision of the Scrutiny Committee was not challenged and the same has attained finality. 9. It is in these circumstances, the question is whether on the basis of caste certificate dated 28.06.1991 issued in favour of the petitioner, he was justified in applying for the post of assistant teacher which was reserved for scheduled tribes candidate. 10.Now in the instant case it is an admitted position that the 5 management issued advertisement on 03.06.2005 inviting applications from the reserved category candidates for filling the post of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to this advertisement, the petitioner, though untrained, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher claiming that he belongs to scheduled tribe category. In the appeal it was asserted by him that at the time of interview, there was no other scheduled tribe candidate, except the petitioner herein and since there was backlog of scheduled tribe category, in order to fill that backlog, the management appointed the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the management, it was specifically asserted that the petitioner did not submit caste validity certificate inspite of repeated demands. On inquiry it was revealed that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe category and the caste certificate obtained by his father was cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. It was therefore submitted that the caste of a child is always recognized by the caste of his father. The petitioner obtained appointment by submitting false caste certificate. It is in these circumstances, the question is whether the petitioner was justified in applying for the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2005, when admittedly, it was 6 reserved for scheduled tribe category. 11.In my opinion, though the petitioner's caste certificate is actually not cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, once the Scrutiny Committee had rejected the caste claim of the petitioner's father in the year 1994 and the said order became final as it was not challenged, it was not open to the petitioner to apply to the post of assistant teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.06.2005 on the footing that he belongs to scheduled tribe category. Once this position is obtained from the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find that the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 committed any error in terminating the services of the petitioner. In paragraphs 28 and 56 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that the child inherits his father's caste and the petitioner did not disclose rejection of his father’s caste certificate, when he applied for appointment as assistant teacher. 12.The finding of the Tribunal is based on the available material and cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law or fact. Nor can it be said that the Tribunal considered this aspect with wrong approach or that the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated by any 7 extraneous or erroneous consideration. This Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate forum over the findings recorded by the Tribunal, but, the judicial review of such findings recorded by the Tribunal is confined to the manner in which the conclusions have been arrived at and not their correctness. The Tribunal has considered at length the ‘material’ placed by both the parties and on weighing the probabilities, the material placed by the Respondent Management was found acceptable, which does not call for any interference under Article 226. In the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case however there shall be no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)