The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish caste status, which was not met, leading to the rejection of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge is raised to the order dated 21-06-2023 passed by respondent no.2- the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur (for short- 'the Scrutiny Committee'), whereby, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Halba' (Scheduled Tribe') has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Halba' (Scheduled Tribe'). Accordingly, on 28-09-1981, the Executive Magistrate, Chimur, issued a caste certificate in her favour that she belongs to 'Halba' (Scheduled Tribe'). In the year 1991, the petitioner joined the post of Clerk to respondent No. 1 Bank under the 'Halba' (Scheduled Tribe') category. To get a validity certificate petitioner had applied to the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, for verification of her caste validity Certificate, which was invalidated, that she belongs to 'Halba' (Scheduled Tribe'). Therefore, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 30-12-1998 passed by the said Committee before this Court in Writ Petition No.1179/1999.

4. This Court by order dated 12-03-2014 quashed and set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the Committee to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law. The respondent no.2 Committee was also directed to complete the said proceedings within a period of one year.

5. As the respondent Committee has not decided the caste claim of the petitioner in time as directed, so she has moved Civil Application No.2950/2018 which came to be disposed of on 15-07-2019, thereby directing the respondent no.2 Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of six months.

6. During the pendency of the claim, the respondent Committee at Nagpur transferred the case of the petitioner to the Caste Certificate Committee at Gadchiroli, and the said Committee issued notice to the petitioner. Despite the issuance of notices, the petitioner failed to appear before the Committee. Again in 2020-2021 despite giving several opportunities the petitioner failed to appear before the Committee. Then the matter was transferred to respondent No. 2 Committee, Chandrapur. Since the respondent no.2 Committee was of the view that the petitioner's claim was doubtful, the same was forwarded to the Vigilance Cell Department under Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short, the 'Rules, 2003').

7. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell Department conducted the enquiry and submitted its report on 27-12-2022 before the respondent no.2 Committee along with the documents discovered during the enquiry.

8. The respondent no.2 Committee after considering the Vigilance Cell report and documents, it seems that during the enquiry the Vigilance Cell found the pre-Constitutional era documents of her blood relatives having adverse entries of caste 'Koshti'. So also, the Vigilance Cell found two blood relatives of her have obtained validity certificates that they belong to the 'Koshti' caste. Therefore, the Committee called upon her to submit an explanation about the said documents and the validity certificate. After having offered an opportunity of hearing, the respondent no.2 Committee after considering the document on record vide impugned order dated 21-06-2023, rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No. 2 Committee was not competent to decide the claim of the petitioner as the said Scrutiny Committee had not been constituted in accordance with the law. He submitted that as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 and the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2527/2009 (Rohit