O R D E R

The petitioner in this writ petition assailing the order dated 23.04.2016 as per Annexure-Q to the petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant by the National Aerospace Laboratory (‘the NAL’ for short) and he submitted his caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar indicating his caste as ‘Mogaveera’. On employment, the said caste certificate was to be verified and the matter was before the Caste Verification Committee. The Committee by its order dated 09.01.2014 held that the petitioner was not entitled for employment under the reserved category of OBC since his father was a Jain, though his mother, who was a Mogaveera belongs to OBC. The NAL issued notice to the petitioner stating as to why further action should not be taken against the petitioner since false certificate was furnished while seeking employment. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Committee before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 endorsed the same. Assailing the said order, the writ petition was preferred before this Court in W.P. No.27579/2014 and this Court by its order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Respondent No.2, on remand, again rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The State has filed its statement of objections inter alia contending that the authority has rightly passed the impugned order and on remand, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner to produce the materials relating to whether the petitioner has been brought up as per the caste of the mother or not and to produce the relevant material in the said regard. It is contended that the order of respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner belongs to Jain Community is on the basis of the caste of the father and the petitioner does not belong to OBC and cannot take a protection that his mother belongs to Mogaveera community which is an OBC and that the impugned order passed by the respondent is in accordance with law.

4. Heard Sri. K. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. N. Anitha, learned HCGP for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the impugned order is nothing but a clear violation of directions and observations issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, wherein this Court had directed the authority to consider the fact/situation and to find out whether the petitioner was brought up as per the caste of the mother and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC

400 [Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika]. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has produced materials to show that the petitioner has accepted Mogaveera as his community and was following the customs and traditions of the said community and that he never lived like a person belonging to Jain community. The spot mahazar conducted by the Village Accountant at Annexure-E2 would clearly makes it evident that the petitioner and his family members were following the customs and traditions of the Mogaveera community. It is contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without considering the settled proposition of law in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika (stated supra) and sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State in addition to reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections would contend that the impugned order dated 23.04.2016 at Annexure-Q is in accordance with law and learned HCGP would submit that as per directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.27579/2014, petitioner has not produced any relevant material before respondent No.2 to evidence that the petitioner was following the customs and tradition of his mother and has accepte