Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.)

1. Heard Shri Narnaware, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rane, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent no.1 -Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate certifying that he belongs to "Mahar" - Scheduled Caste.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Security Officer on 1/6/2009 in the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Pursuant to invalidation of the caste certificate of the petitioner, his services came to be terminated with effect from 23/7/2013. The termination of services of the petitioner is only on the ground that his caste certificate is invalidated.

4. The respondent no.1 - Scrutiny Committee has concluded that though the petitioner belongs to "Mahar" -Scheduled Caste, he has not submitted any document pertaining to the period prior to 1950 to substantiate that he or his family members were permanent residents of Maharashtra State. According to respondent no.1 - Scrutiny Committee, in the written explanation submitted by the petitioner, he has stated that his father was born in Madhya Pradesh and he came to Maharashtra in 1965 or 1966 and as per Government Resolution, the persons, who were permanent residents of Maharashtra State prior to 1950 are only entitled for the benefits.

5. Shri Narnaware, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised various grounds. He has contended that the ancestors of the petitioner were residents of Tinkheda, Taluq Saunsar, District Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh and in any case, the petitioner was entitled for the benefits of Scheduled Caste as the benefits would continue despite bifurcation of the erstwhile State as per the States Reorganization Act, 1956.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra and others {(2004) 9 SCC 481)} and has submitted that the facts in the present case are almost identical to the facts in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (cited supra) and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as a Scheduled Caste candidate. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has concluded as follows :

"5) But the question which arises for consideration herein appears to have not been raised in any other case. It is not in dispute that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered disadvantages and been denied facilities for development and growth in several States. They require protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the form of reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal terms with the more advantaged and developed sections of the community. The question is as to whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/Halbi which stands recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra having their origin in Chhindwara region, a part of which, on States' reorganization, has come to the State of Maharashtra, was entitled to the benefit of reservation. It is one thing to say that the expression "in relation to that State" occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area is dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States."

"In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document