The verification of caste claims by a Scrutiny Committee is mandatory for Central Government employees claiming benefits of reservation under the Maharashtra Act of 2000, underscoring the state's legislative authority and the requirement for legitimacy in caste claims.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel Mr.S.R.Narnaware for the petitioners, learned Advocate General Mr. Birendra Saraf with Adv. Ms Aakanksha Saxena with learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A.S. Fulzele and AGP Mr. P.P. Pendke for the respondents-State, learned Advocate Ms Mugdha Chandurkar for respondents-Union of India and learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Deshpande for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP No.4759/2021.

2. Since the issue involved in these petitions is similar, the same are decided by this common order.

3. The present petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that the respondent No.6-Scrutiny Committee has no legislative competence under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2000” for the sake of brevity). The vires of the said Act is challenged as unconstitutional, unreasonable and illegal on account of which the respondent No.6 has no jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the central government employees like the petitioners and a prayer is also made to declare the Act of 2000 more particularly section 6(1) and Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003 as unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in contravention of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ku.Madhuri Patil, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and in the case of Dayaram v. Sudhir Bantham, reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 414.

4. There are two categories of the petitioners: first category comprises those petitioners who have retired and second category includes petitioners those are still in service. As there is challenge to the validity of the Act of 2000, specifically section 6(1) and rule 2(9) of the Rules of 2003 as unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in contravention of directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this issue is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties and at the request of the parties.

5. The petitioners are domiciled by birth in the State of Maharashtra. Since common question of law is involved in these petitions challenging the vires of the Act of 2000 and similar facts, grounds, challenge and prayers are involved, therefore, the present common petition is filed before this Court.

6. It is the case of the petitioners, who are all Central Government employees that they were appointed against the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes Category on the basis of caste certificates showing them as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, which was the only pre-condition mentioned in the appointment order. There was no communication requiring submission of a validity certificate duly verified from the respondent No.6-Scrutiny Committee. The power to issue caste certificate with Competent Authority under section 4 of the Act of 2000, any scrutiny for its validity would also be governed by the Act of 2000. the social status is being verified on the basis of which employment granted. It is the contention of the petitioners that as per the various office memorandum, the caste certificate were to be verified from the concerned District Magistrate, which was already verified and there was no necessity of further verification from the Scrutiny Committee since there was no term or condition in the appointment order of the petitioners being the employees of the Central Government to submit the validity certificate. It is further contention of the petitioners that they were appointed prior to 1995 and as per the parliamen