1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3572 OF 2009 Suresh s/o Sayanna Koskewad Age 26 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Bhisi, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy.Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed .. Respondents Shri S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respndents 1 and 3 Shri U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri P.P.Dama, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 15th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the respondent – scrutiny committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mannervarlu – Scheduled Tribe. 3. It appears that the petitioner who claims to be belonging to Mannervarlu – Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak by respondent No.3. The claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mannervarlu – Scheduled Tribe came to be referred to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification. It appears that the respondent – scrutiny committee after perusing the documents as well as the report of the vigilance cell ordered re-enquiry to be conducted by the vigilance cell. Unfortunately, the copy of the report of the re-enquiry conducted by the vigilance cell was not provided to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of either knowing about the contents of the report or controverting the contents of the report. The petitioner 3 undisputedly stands prejudiced in the sense that the recitals in the said report have been used against the petitioner for invalidating his tribe claim. In the light of this undisputed position, we are inclined to allow this petition. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the scrutiny committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of submitting his reply to the report of the re- enquiry. Shri Malte, learned Counsel for the committee undertakes to provide a copy of the re-enquiry report to the petitioner during the course of the day. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. In order to ensure that the tribe claim of the petitioner is expeditiously decided, we direct the petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee on 12.10.2009 and direct the committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within four months of 12.10.2009. Since we have remitted the matter back to the committee for a decision afresh, we direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to take any action adverse to the interest of the petitioner solely on the basis of the order of the committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/3572.09wp 5