SANJEEVKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'tokre Koli', a scheduled Tribe. It is the case of the petitioner that for seeking employment, he obtained a certificate certifying that he belongs to Tokre koli', a Scheduled Tribe, which was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification in the year 1994. It appears that the petitioner appeared for the State Civil Services examination held in the year 1992. He was qualified in the preliminary examination and was called upon to appear for main examination. The petitioner got through the main examination held in the year 1992 and was called for the interview and after undergoing the oral test successfully, the petitioner was selected for the post of tahsildar along with several other candidates. The Tribe claim of the petitioner was required to be referred to the Committee for verification. As such, he was called upon to submit documents in support of his claim. It appears that the matter which was referred to the committee for verification of the social status remained undecided for a considerable period and, therefore, the petitioner approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 4078/95 seeking a direction for early disposal of his status claim. This Court, by an order dated 08-01-1996, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court by the Committee. It appears that the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. As such the petitioner again approached this Court challenging the decision rendered by the Scrutiny Committee, by filing a Writ Petition bearing No. 2875/96. The writ petition came to be disposed of by the division bench (Coram : A. B. Naik and V. G. Munshi, JJ. ) by order dated 08-08-2003. This court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 15-02-1996 passed by the committee invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner. This Court remitted back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the status claim of the petitioner in accordance with the observations made in the order, within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the petitioner before the committee. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 18-08-2003.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he did appear before the Committee on 18-08-2003. It is further case of the petitioner that he did receive the notice calling upon him to appear before the Committee on 09-01-2004, 23-01-2004 and 13-02-2004. The petitioner contended that he tendered applications stating the reason that he was not keeping good health and, therefore, was unable to appear before the committee. As such, the petitioner was unable to appear before the Committee on any of the aforesaid dates. It is further case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 2 Committee, without informing petitioner the next date of hearing, decided the tribe claim behind his back and without affding an opportunity of hearing. According to him, he placed on record of the committee several documents and further wanted to file additional documents. However, the Committee proceeded to decide the matter in his absence. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the Committee did not consider the documentary evidence placed by him on record in its proper perspective.

(3.) Initially after presentation of this petition, the Division Bench of this Court, on the request made by the Respondents, granted adjournment and directed the parties to maintain status quo till then by order dated 19-08-2004. The order of status quo was further continued for a period of six weeks from 28-12-2004. It appears from the Order Sheet that the petition was listed on 20th March, 2006 for pronouncement of the judgment and the Court required clarification from the learned Counsel for the parties as to whether the cut off date, as specified in Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 has been extended. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on the point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that he may be granted an opportunity of citing certain judgments as well as for placing on record copy of the Kalelkar backward Classes Commission report. The court, as such, directed that the matter be not treated as part heard and granted adjournment till June, 2006. It appears from record that thereafter the matter came to be adjourned from time to time.