JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---By the order dated 5-5-1989 the respondent No. 2 ordered reversion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer (C) since it was found that the petitioner was wrongfully promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (C) against the quota reserved for B.C. Communities vide order dated 23-9-1987. This office order dated 5-5-1989 is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was born in Maharashtra and the question whether he is migrant from Madhya Pradesh was not open to be decided by the employer, but could only have been determined by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (For short "the Scrutiny Committee") and unless that claim was determined holding that the petitioner was not Schedule Tribe (S.T.) the order or reversion could not have been passed. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in (Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others)1, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690, another judgment of the Apex Court in (Union of India others v. Dudh Nath Prasad)2, 2000(1) Supreme 38 and the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1562/2000 (Shri Needish Ashwin v. State of Maharashtra others)3, decided on October 19, 2000.

3. Per contra Ms. Baxi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner is migrant to the State of Maharashtra and therefore not entitled to get the benefit of the S.C. and S.T. in the State of Maharashtra vide circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 10-5-1990. According to the learned Counsel, the said circular dated 10-5-1990 issued by the Government of Maharashtra is based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Merri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College others)4, 1990(3) Supreme Court Cases 130. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another v. Union of India and another)5, 1994(5) Supreme Courts Cases 244 and submitted that the order of reversion dated 5-5-1989 is legal and proper.

4. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner orally submitted that the petitioner was born in Maharashtra, we find that there is no such statement of fact made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Rather, in paragraph 2 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he was originally resident of village: Sawargaon, post Pandhurna, District : Chnindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Meaning thereby the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is originally resident of the said State. It is further averred by the petitioner in the petition that he got his primary school education till higher secondary examination in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner passed his higher secondary examination in the year 1975 from Pandurna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner after having completed his education applied for employment to the respondent No. 2 and by the order dated 26-3-1981 was appointed as Junior Engineer (C) and was posted at Chandrapur. The petitioner claims to have been appointed against the vacant post of Junior Engineer (C) in workcharged establishment. He has averred that he was confirmed in the employment as Junior Engineer (C) on completion of probation period. The petitioner's name was recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and accordingly vide order dated 23-9-1987 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer and started working as such. As already indicated above, on 5-5-1989 respondent No. 2 issued the order reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil II) to the original post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the ground that the said post was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document