GANGADHAR ALIAS NANDKUMAR SHIRPURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner belonging to Malajangam" Scheduled Caste. The petitioner also sought a declaration that he belongs to 'Mala jangam' Scheduled Caste. The petitioner is working as Senior Research Assistant. Agriculture Research Station, Niphad under the respondent No.3 University. Since the appointment of the petitioner was against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste, his caste claim came to be referred to respondent No.2 Committee for the purpose of verification. Vide Order dated 3121995, respondent No.2 Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, required to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 891 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 492003 passed in the said writ petition partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent No.2 Committee to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of certain directions made in the said order. Accordingly, respondent No.2 Committee reconsidered the claim of the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 29102003 reiterated its earlier decision of invalidating the claim. Hence, present petition.

(2.) Shri. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the decision of the Committee is in contravention of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 94. He submits that the home inquiry as required under the said judgment by Vigilance Cell has not been done in the present case and, therefore, finding of respondent Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner is not justified in law. He further submits that the observations of the Division Bench in its judgment dated 492003, in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.891 of 1995 to the effect that failure to cause a vigilance inquiry by itself would not vitiate its decision are contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and, therefore, the same will have to be ignored. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, 1984 2 SCC 324, learned Counsel submits that all Courts in India are bound by the judgment of the Apex Court and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 4 92003 which is not in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, in so far as direction to conduct the home inquiiy, is per incuriam.

(3.) Shri. Killarikar, learned Counsel appeav'\rvg on behalf of respondent No.2 Committee and Shri. Gastagar, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 submit that remand to the Committee was for the limited aspect regarding evidence of one Shri. Parsuram Wadikaras well as Kishanrao Wadikar. He submits that in so far as other aspect of the matter is concerned, Division Bench has considered the matter on merits and did not find favour with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that, it is not open for the petitioner, now, to contend that the judgment in so far as its observation that "failure to cause a vigilance inquiry by itself has not vitiated its decision" is per incuriam.