ORAL ORDER (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

1. Some essential facts, giving rise to this petition, can be summarised as below: Petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Chhatri’, Scheduled Tribe. He secured certificate on 29.01.1993, issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Nanded, certifying therein that petitioner is member of ‘Chhatri’, Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner was employed as ‘Wahini Madatnis’ with Respondent No.3- Maharashtra State Electricity Board as against a seat earmarked for reserved category candidate on 29.03.1997. The tribe certificate secured by petitioner came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee by the employer on 27.06.2002.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that Respondent No.3 issued notice directing him to produce caste validity certificate as expeditiously as possible, failing which, it was threatened that his services shall stand terminated. Petitioner, who was apprehending order of termination of his services, approached this Court seeking protection till Caste Scrutiny Committee decides status claim of the petitioner, by filing Writ Petition No.6760/2004. This Court granted protection in favour of the petitioner by order dated 02.11.2004, thereby directing the employer not to put an end to the services of the petitioner until disposal of tribe claim by the Scrutiny Committee. Although, in the memo of petition, it is stated that said writ petition is pending, however, we find from the record that said petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 04.03.2005 and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition in view of his preferring another writ petition bearing W.P.No.1257/2005. The interim relief, which was operating in favour of the petitioner, was continued for a period of two weeks thereafter. . It appears that as the Scrutiny Committee invalidated tribe claim of the petitioner and as such petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1257/2005. In the said petition, petitioner made a grievance that although he filed a detailed reply on 06.09.2004 to the report tendered by vigilance officer, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the same and passed order on 15.12.2004 invalidating status claim of the petitioner. This Court, therefore, by an order dated 22.03.2005, remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the Committee was directed to decide the matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law.

3. The matter was again reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee during the second round and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Committee was not convinced regarding the claim put forth by the petitioner and as such by an order dated 07.07.2005, invalidated the tribe claim lodged by the petitioner. The said order, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is impugned in this petition.

4. In order to substantiate his claim, petitioner has filed as many as sixteen documents before the Committee. Petitioner also caused appearance in person before the Committee for the purposes of hearing on 16.05.2001. An interview form was got filled in from the petitioner to ascertain the peculiar traits and characteristics of the tribe. Petitioner was also supplied with the copy of inquiry report tendered by the vigilance officer and the petitioner had tendered his reply to the said report on 06.09.2004. The Committee, after considering the documentary evidence and after offering personal hearing to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order.

5. So far as documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner is concerned, document at Sr.No.1 is the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner himself, which was subject matter of scrutiny. That so far as school admission extract of the petitioner, wherein date of admission was mentioned as 01.07.1974, is concerned, the Committee found that against the caste column, initial entry of caste as ‘Shimpi’ was rounded up and new entry as ‘Chhatri’ was recor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document