JUDGMENT :

S. S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2-Committee thereby invalidating the tribe certificate of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur, scheduled tribe.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner belongs to Thakur tribe which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of Parliamentary Enactment. The Petitioner was thus granted tribe certificate dated 28.06.2007 by the competent authority of jurisdiction after confirming the genuineness of the tribe claim of the Petitioner. Since, petitioner was intending to go for higher education, he moved to Respondent No. 2-Committee for verification of his tribe certificate through his Junior College i.e. HPT Arts and RYK Science College Nashik in the year 2009. Alongwith his application for verification he submitted necessary documents of relatives from paternal side and tribe validity certificate granted to the uncle of the Petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings before Respondent No. 2-Committee, the Respondent No. 3 granted admission to the petitioner in the first year M.B.B.S. Degree course in the academic year 2011-2012 under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, Vigilance Cell conducted home and school enquiry in the case of the petitioner and submitted its report to Respondent No. 2-Committee. During the course of Vigilance Cell enquiry, the Vigilance Cell officer recorded statement in regard to the traits, characteristics, traditions, customs etc. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2-Committee served copy of the said report to the Petitioner by notice dated 30.12.2011. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2-Committee after hearing the petitioner, passed an order thereby invalidating the tribe certificate of the petitioner by its order dated 08.02.2012. Felling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 2235 of 2012 in this Court. The said writ petition after being adjourned time to time was called for admission on 28.02.2014. After hearing all the parties in detail, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:- Anoop Mohta & A.A. Sayed, JJ.) relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhuri Nitin Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. decided on 26-02-2014 in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 along with other connected petitions, set aside the order passed by Respondent No. 2-Committee dated 08.02.2012 and remanded the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration. The Respondent No. 2-Committee was directed to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of judgment-order. The Petitioner was also directed to remain present before Respondent No. 2-Committee. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 2-Committee on 18.03.2014 and communicated both the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin Jadhav & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 2235 of 2012 (Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors).

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 2- Committee without assigning any valid reasons referred the case of the petitioner for re-enquiry to its Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry in the case of the petitioner and again confirmed the genuineness of the documents produced by him. The Vigilance Cell also visited to the home of the petitioner for recording his statement, however, the father of the petitioner pointed out the vigilance cell that his statement is already recorded earlier on 11.12.2014 and requested to consider the same earlier statement. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2-Committee served the said enquiry report dated 23.03.2015 upon the petitioner and directed him to file his reply alongwith notice dated 08.