Raju S/O Sampatrao Pandhare vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Tribal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5166 Bom

     WP 3981.05 [J].odt                            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                       
                              WRIT PETITION NO.3981 OF 2005

     Raju s/o Sampatrao Pandhare,
     Aged about 34 years,
     Occupation - Labour,




                                                      
     R/o. at Sillewada Khadan,
     Tahsil-Saoner, District-Nagpur.                    ..             Petitioner

                                    .. Versus ..




                                                  
     1] The State of Maharashtra, through
        Tribal Development Department,
                             
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

     2] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
                            
        Committee, Nagpur, through its
        Member Secretary and Deputy Director.

     3] The Divisional Controller,
        Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
      

        Nagpur.                                 ..                     Respondents
   



                              ..........
     Ms. Amruta Gupta, counsel h/f Mr. Nitin Borkar, counsel for the petitioner,
     Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                              ..........





                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK  AND
                                             KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order of the

Scrutiny Committee, dated 25.10.2004, refusing to verify the caste claim of the

petitioner on the ground that he is a migrant. The petitioner had also sought a

direction against the respondent no.3 to grant provisional appointment to the

petitioner.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Driver in pursuance of an

advertisement issued by the respondent no.3. The post of Driver was

earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. Since the petitioner claimed to belong to

'Gond' Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee

at Nagpur for verification. As the petitioner apprehended that his name would

be deleted from the list of selected candidates, the petitioner had sought a

direction against the respondents not to delete his name from the list of

selected candidates and appoint him provisionally as the Scrutiny Committee

had refused to verify the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed

the instant petition against the impugned order, dated 25.10.2004.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of

the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee

was justified in refusing to verify the caste claim of the petitioner. The

Scrutiny Committee found, on the basis of the documents on record, that the

petitioner was a resident of Sausar, District-Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh.

In stead of securing the caste certificate from the competent authority in

Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner secured a caste claim from Saoner by claiming

that he is an ordinary resident of State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny

Committee, on the basis of the documents and the other material on record,

found that the petitioner was a resident of Madhya Pradesh and he could not

secure the caste certificate from the competent authority at Saoner. The

Scrutiny Committee, therefore, refused to verify the caste claim of the

petitioner. The order of the Scrutiny Committee appears to be just and proper.

The said order is supported by the Act of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

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 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001)

and the rules framed thereunder. Also, the petitioner's name was removed

from the select list and the other eligible candidate was appointed on the post

for which the petitioner was selected.

Since the order of the Scrutiny Committee appears to be just and

proper, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands

discharged.

                              JUDGE                                           JUDGE
      


     Gulande, PA
   












                                                                                   
                                                           
                                   C E R T I F I C A T E

"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."

Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 07.09.2016.