JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleaders, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated October 21, 2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, respondent No. 2 herein (Committee, for short). A further relief is prayed restraining the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Establishment), respondent No. 3 herein, from giving effect to or taking any action in pursuance of an order passed by respondent No. 2 herein.

4. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Halba community, Scheduled Tribe. The certificate was issued on July 27, 1988 by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur. On the basis of the said certificate, she applied to the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC, for short) for appointment to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Marathi) under the Reserved Category of Scheduled Tribe. She appeared for the competitive examination held by MPSC, got herself selected and after going through all formalities, her name was recommended by MPSC to the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, and she was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist by an order dated January 15, 1995 (Exhibit A to the petition). It is her case that thereafter, her case was referred to the Committee in February, 1996. The petitioner was then promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in December, 1998, and at present also, she is working on the said post.

5. The petitioner stated that the Police Inspector of the Vigilance Cell examined the school record of the petitioner and her grandfather and other relatives and obtained materials adverse to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 Committee, therefore, issued a notice on September 27, 2002 to the petitioner, calling upon her to offer her explanation as to what she had to say in the matter. The petitioner filed her reply to the inquiry report, and asserted that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was then directed to appear before the Committee, and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Committee. Finally, however, by the order impugned in the petition, the claim of the petitioner was negatived, and it was held that she did not belong to Halba community, Scheduled Tribe, and the certificate was ordered to be cancelled and confiscated. The petitioner, thereafter, has approached this Court.

6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No. 2 Committee is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law. It was submitted that the constitution of Committee was not legal, valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001) ("the Act", for short,) and hence, the action taken by the Committee cannot be said to be in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Officer was vitiated because the Research Officer, having intimate knowledge in identifying tribal community, was not associated during the inquiry. Finally, it was submitted that the action of respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be in consonance with law, inasmuch as the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was verified and she was confirmed in service. After undue and unreasonable period, it is not open to respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed and action taken by the respondents. It was submitted that after considering the relevant d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document