The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fairness and justice in the scrutiny process under the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001, and the criticism of the committee's non-application of mind and inconsistency in granting validity certificates within the family.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

The petitioner has approached this court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik.

2. The matter has a prolonged history. The petitioner before this court relies upon a certificate issued by the competent authority dated 25th October, 1990, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'B' to the writ petition, which certifies the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. That is issued by Executive Magistrate, Pathardi.

3. The petitioner, relying upon this certificate, sought appointment against a reserved post and in the establishment of the third respondent. The post of Messenger was offered to him and he was appointed thereon on 1st February, 2003 relying upon this certificate.

4. After the petitioner joined the services, this certificate was forwarded for scrutiny and verification at the office of the second respondent. The petitioner's employer forwarded it on 5th December, 2009. The petitioner claims that in pursuance of the scrutiny and verification process provided in the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioner appeared before this committee in the first round. He produced several documents and as enlisted in para 6 of this writ petition and copies of which also are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'D' collectively.

5. In para 7 of this writ petition, the petitioner states that he also filed copies of caste certificates issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner from the paternal side. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the voluminous evidence on record, the committee passed an order on 17th March, 2015 invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe, which is not the correct nomenclature as appearing in Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. That order was passed without considering the merits of the case.

6. The petitioner, as a consequence of this order of the committee, approached, once again, the competent authority, who is in-charge of issuing the caste/tribe certificates. He filled in an application in the prescribed form and in a prescribed manner and requested that authority to certify that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe and as per the nomenclature or description in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. Thereupon, the competent authority has now issued a certificate on 26th November, 2015, copy of which is at Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. That states that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.

7. In the first round, the petitioner submitted copies of five caste validity certificates in relation to his cousin brothers and which certificates of validity have been granted and issued by the second respondent committee. The petitioner relied upon the said certificates issued to (i) Kiran H. Buge the cousin brother of the petitioner from the paternal side, (ii) Balasaheb Buge, another cousin and in whose favour the caste validity certificate was issued on 2nd July, 2004 and (iii) Chandrashekhar Buge, in whose favour the caste validity certificate was issued on 6th July, 2009. Pertinently, the petitioner claims to have relied also on a caste validity certificate issued to one Santosh Narayan Buge on 27th July, 2004. The petitioner also placed other records.

8. The petitioner complains that despite the above records being furnished so as to assist the committee in scritinising and verifying his claim based on the earlier and now revised certificate of caste/tribe issued (Annexure 'E'), the committee forwarded the entire material to the Vigilance Cell and sought a report from that cell. That Vigilance Cell attached to the second respondent committee submitted its report on 3rd August, 2011.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent committe