ANILKUMAR RAGHUNATHRAO CHANDORIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an order passed by the respondent No, 2 Committee invalidating the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe and the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 28-2-1989 confirming the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

(2.) THE Tahsildar at Udgir issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 26-3-1979 stating that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe and a similar certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad on 2-3-1985. On completion of his graduation in 1979, he came to be appointed as Industries Inspector under the Directorate of Industries, Bombay, against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He was also promoted to the next higher post, by giving him the benefit of reservation available to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's tribe claim, based on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar Udgir and Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, came to be referred for scrutiny by the Industries Department to the respondent No. 2 Committee. The said claim was invalidated by the Committee presided over by 3 members by order dated 10-2-1987. The petitioner's first appeal was decided by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 12-10-1987 and the case was remanded for fresh remarks of the Committee on the additional evidence, i. e. a copy of the judgment dated 20-6-1986 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 438 of 1984 in the case of (Subhash Ganpatrao kabade v. State of Maharashtra and others), reported in 1987 (3) Bom. C. R. 615. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared before the respondent No. 2 Committee and after considering his additional evidence and giving him an opportunity of hearing, the Committee recorded a fresh finding and turned down the petitioners' tribe claim. In the fresh round of appeal, the lower Appellate authority considered the original order of the Committee as well as the fresh remarks submitted on the basis of additional evidence and held that the decision of the Committee did not call for any interference, on scrutiny of the record and the arguments advanced by the appellant.

(3.) AT the outset, we must note the request made by Shri Talekar, Advocate for remand of the case, to the newly constituted Committee by the State government, pursuant to the law laid down in the case of (Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development), 1995 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)690 : a. I. R. 1995 S. C. 94. He submitted that the documents, which were produced by the petitioner were not duly considered by the Committee and after remand order was passed, the additional remarks submitted to the lower Appellate Authority, were not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice. We are not impressed by the reasoning addressed before us by the learned Counsel. We have noticed that the original decision dated 10-2-1987 has been rendered by the Committee of 3 members and during last 16 years or so, the petitioner has continued to enjoy the benefits of reservation though his tribe claim was invalidated. We deemed it expedient to call for the original record from the respondent No. 2 committee as well as the service book of the petitioner's father from the office of Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, at Udgir.