JUDGMENT
S.P. Kukday, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service for the respective respondents.
3. The petitioner claims status of “Mahadeo Koli”, Scheduled Tribe. He applied for the post of Junior Operator in Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) and was selected from the category reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Operator by an order dated 24-4-1997 against the reserved post. The respondent No. 4 submitted caste certificate produced by the petitioner for verification to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad. During the course of verification of the caste claim, procedure was followed, home enquiry was conducted by vigilance Cell and the report was submitted. After considering the documents produced by the candidate and the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Committee came to the conclusion that the documents are not sufficient to sustain tribe claim of the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner does not have knowledge about the characteristics and traits of “Mahadeo Koli”, Scheduled Tribe. In this view of the matter, the tribe claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 17th March, 2004. This order is impugned by the petitioner in this petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was obligatory on the Committee to supply copy of the Vigilance Cell Report regarding the home enquiry and to give an opportunity to submit his explanation in respect of this report. Similarly, the Committee ought to have given him opportunity of being heard before deciding the tribe claim. The Committee has observed in the order that the petitioner was asked to remain present before the Committee on 15-10-2003 but neither the petitioner nor his father remained present. The proceedings is therefore decided ex parte.
5. To ascertain whether the report of the Vigilance Cell was received by the petitioner and whether intimation in respect of the hearing was properly served on the petitioner, we requested learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 to produce the original record. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, after ascertaining from the record, submits that the report of the Vigilance Cell was despatched on 16-9-2002 along with the notice by Registered Post A.D. Similarly, notice of hearing was also despatched on 9th October, 2002 by Registered Post A.D. The record shows that another notice was also sent on 16-1-2003. However, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has candidly admitted that the acknowledgments are not on record to show that the notices were in fact received by the petitioner.
6. It is now well settled that the opportunity has to be given to the claimant for submitting his explanation and upon hearing him, the caste claim can be decided by the Committee. The Committee did take some precautions. However, it is apparent that there is nothing on record to show that in fact notices were served on the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner has amended the petition by producing documents from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udgir, in the form of F.I.R. of the period prior to the Presidential Order of 1950. In view of the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation in respect of the home enquiry report and opportunity of being heard could not be availed by him for non-service of notices, this is a fit case for remand of the matter for a de novo enquiry and fresh decision on merit.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(a) The impugned order dated 17-3-2004 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, for de novo enquiry and fresh decision in regard to tribe claim of the petitioner.
(b) The Committee shall make available the report of the Vigilance Cell to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce additional documents, if he so desires, before the Committee, in regard to his tribe claim.
(c) The Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merit, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Committee shall complete the proceedings and decide the tribe claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Committee. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the Committee on 14th March, 2006.
8. Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.