P. S. BRAHME, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, Adv. for the Petitioner. Rule returnable forthwith. Mrs. S. W. Deshpande, adv waives notice on behalt of respondent no. 1 and Mr. S C. Mehadia, Adv. waives notice on behalf of respondent no. 2.

( 2 ) BY consent, heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

( 3 ) BY this petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dt. 16-10-2004 and 8-12-2004 respectively passed by respondent no. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee and respondent no. 2 - Maharashtra State Regional transport Corporation.

( 4 ) THE petitioner belongs to "gond" community which is specified as Scheduled tribe in relation to the Maharashtra State. He was issued Caste Certificate to that effect dt. 6-7-1995 by the Competent Authority at Ramtek on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate, patwaris report and affidavit. The father of the petitioner, who was permanent resident of charbhata, Tq. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh), shifted and settled at Tatladoh since he got employment in the Irrigation Department. The petitioner got education at Mandal and he was selected by Respondent no. 2 to the post of Driver (Junior ).

( 5 ) THE documents of the petitioner were forwarded to respondent no. 1 for caste scrutiny. The respondent no. l vide the impugned order dt. 16-10-2004 rejected the caste claim of the petitioner holding that he is a migrant and further held that the petitioner is not entitled to get concession of "gond" scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the said order, respondent no. 2 also cancelled the selection of the petitioner vide the impugned order dt. 8-12-2004.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the Caste Scrutiny committee has refused to verify the caste claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is a migrant. He further submitted that the issue in question has been decided by the Apex Court in the case in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2004 (4) Mh. LJ. 784 : [2004 (5) all MR (S. C.) 152].

( 7 ) WE have perused the impugned order passed by respondent no 1-Caste scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny committee, placing reliance on the instructions issued by the Government of India vide circular dt. 2-5-1975, found that the petitioner being migrant his caste claim cannot be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State to which the person is migrated. As per the Circular, when a person migrates from one State to another, he can claim to belong to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only in relation to the State to which he originally belonged and not in respect of the State to which he has migrated. It is on that premises that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner being migrant, he is not entitled to get the concession as Scheduled Tribe of the Maharashtra State.

( 8 ) IT is crystal clear from the orders afore-mentioned that the Caste Scrutiny committee has not invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. But the Caste Scrutiny committee has found that the petitioners claim to be belonging to "gond" Scheduled Tribe cannot be considered by the Committee since the petitioner is migrant to the Maharashtra state.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner is right in placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sudhakar vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Supra ). In that case, identical question arose for consideration before the high Court. The petitioner, who claimed to be belonging to "halba" Scheduled Tribe, was promoted against a reserved vacancy. Later on, the petitioner therein was reverted on the ground that he was not entitled for benefit of reservation in the State of Maharashtra. The matter was not referred to the Caste Scrutiny committee before taking any action of reversion. In that case, the employer issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner therein should not be reverted from t