1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 539 of 2011 Shri. Ashok s/o Mahadeorao Pathrabe V/s. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai and another _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 07, 2011. Heard Mr. K. B. Ambilwade, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Vikas Kulsunge, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Smt. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Shri. Ambilwade, has challenged the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, passed on 04/10/2010 on various grounds. First contention is, documents at serial number 7 & 8 produced before Scrutiny Committee and mentioned at page Nos. 58 & 59 are not looked into. Second contention is, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine Vigilance Officer and the last contention is, literature 2 produced by the petitioner showing traits and customs prevailing in community has not been appreciated by Committee. 3. Respective counsel appearing for Respondents submit that there is no question of extending any opportunity for cross-examination. It is their further contention that petitioner has not led any evidence to bring on record traits and customs to establish affinity. It is also contended that all documents produced by the petitioner have been appreciated by Scrutiny Committee. 4. Shri. Ambilwade, without prejudice to his contention noted above, has urged that the petitioner entered into the service in the year 1976 and, therefore, as per policy decision of State Government, dated 15/06/1995, the services of petitioner could not have been terminated. He relies upon judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court protecting the services of employees. 5. Shri. Kulsunge, Advocate points out that the petitioner is not an employee of State Government but he is an employee of Indian Oil Corporation, a Company registered under Companies Act. 6. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 9 documents produced by the petitioner before the Committee are mentioned in para ‘2’ 3 of its order. Document no. ‘7’ is an unattested xerox copy of the order passed by Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur whereby caste claim of applicant’s son has been invalidated. Document No. ‘8’ is unattested xerox copy of affidavit sworn in by one Vishwanath Bhagwanji Gurao. The documents find consideration in para ‘8’ in sub-para (g) and (h). It, therefore, cannot be said that these documents (as alleged) are not looked into. We have perused these paragraphs, and we do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Committee while considering the same. Prayer of petitioner for cross-examination of Research Officer is also rejected by Scrutiny Committee. It is to be noted that basic burden to establish his caste claim is upon petitioner and he cannot contend that Scrutiny Committee has to disprove his caste claim. There is, therefore, no question of cross-examining the Research Officer. 7. The so called literature of 1918 appears to be an extract from a book and that extract or authenticity thereof has not been independently established by petitioner. 8. Petitioner had not sought to adduce any evidence to bring on record the customs or traits prevalent in his community. In this situation, he cannot contend that necessary opportunity to substantiate his caste claim was not given to him. 4 9. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Versus Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 949 SC, particularly in paragraph 18, does not assist the cause of present petitioner. 10. The petitioner, though was given an opportunity to substantiate his caste claim, has remained satisfied by attempting to point out alleged loop-holes or procedural irregularity as alleged in verification undertaken by Scrutiny Committee. 11. As already noted above, we do not find any illegality in the exercise undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee in the matter. It is admitted position that the question of protection is covered by the judgment of full bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 788, wherein it has been clearly held that grant of such protection by Hon’ble Apex Court is under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In this situation, we cannot extend any protection to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Punde