Judgment :-

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 31, 2004, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 2003 whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Gajanan Sadashiv Ghule, was allowed by setting aside the order of termination of his services dated May 4, 1998.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:

Claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the respondent No. 2 applied to the appellant to appoint him as an Assistant Teacher. The respondent No. 2 was selected by the Subordinate Selection Board from the Scheduled Tribes category and was appointed as Assistant Teacher temporarily on January 16, 1993. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 was subject to verification of his tribe claim. The tribe Certificate produced by the respondent No. 2 was forwarded for verification to Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee (the `Scrutiny Committee' for short). Some of the documents submitted by respondent No. 2 indicated that he was a "Hindu Koli". The Scrutiny Committee, after giving the respondent No. 2 an opportunity of hearing, invalidated the tribe Certificate by decision dated November 6, 1997. The respondent No. 2 was holding the post of Assistant Teacher temporarily, which was specifically reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the appellant terminated services of the respondent No. 2 by order dated May 4, 1998. Thereupon, the respondent No. 2 filed writ petition No. 1660 of 1998 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. He challenged the order terminating his services as well as order dated November 6, 1997, passed by the Scrutiny Committee. It was pointed out to the Division Bench of the High Court, hearing the said matter, that interview was fixed by the Scrutiny Committee on November 6, 1997, but the respondent No. 2 received notice in that behalf on November 12, 1997. The said submission made on behalf of respondent No. 2 was accepted by the High Court. The High Court set aside the order dated November 6, 1997 invalidating caste claim of the respondent No. 2 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the matter afresh after affording necessary opportunity of hearing to him. The Court further directed respondent No. 2 to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on January 29, 1999 along with all necessary documents. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on January 29, 1999, but requested for grant of time and, therefore, he was called upon to appear on December 30, 1999. Again, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the said Committee on December 30, 1999 and prayed to grant time. The record shows that thereafter the respondent No. 2 was not interested in prosecuting the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee. The respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 879 of 1999 challenging the order dated May 4, 1998 by which his services were terminated by the appellant. The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, by judgment dated April 17, 2000, dismissed the said writ petition with the observation that the respondent No. 2 was not interested in proceeding further with the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee and was delaying the entire proceedings on some or the other pretext.

3. After dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on April 24, 2000, but prayed to grant time. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee adjourned the hearing to June 26, 2000. On the said date also the respondent No. 2 requested for more time, which was granted by the Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 did not appear before the said Committee at all and, therefore, the Scrutiny Committee decided to close the matter of verification of tribe claim of the respondent No.2, by order dated November 13, 2000. After a lapse of about three years from the date of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 879 of 1999, the respondent No.2 applied to the Govern