Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Savita w/o Sachin Totewad and Shri Nayandeep s/o Gangadhar Pudalwad, filed two separate writ petitions before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, which invalidated their caste claims as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioners were represented by Advocate P.S. Khubalkar, while the State of Maharashtra and other respondents were represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Geeta Tiwari. The court, comprising Justices R.K. Deshpande and Milind N. Jadhav, heard the matters and reserved judgment on 27th November 2019, pronouncing it on 3rd January 2020. The core issue was whether the Committee's orders were sustainable when the Committee had not filed any affidavit-in-reply to counter the petitioners' contentions, and the petitioners alleged that they were not given adequate opportunity to present their case. The court observed that despite being given an opportunity, the Committee failed to file an affidavit-in-reply, and the petitioners' grievances regarding lack of proper hearing remained uncontroverted. Consequently, the court held that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice and could not be sustained. The court allowed both petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the Committee for fresh consideration. The Committee was directed to decide the matters afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in accordance with law. The court also directed that the petitioners be allowed to continue in the posts they were holding, if any, subject to the outcome of the fresh decisions by the Committee. Rule was made absolute in both petitions with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Caste Scrutiny Committee - Invalidity of Caste Claim - The petitioners challenged the orders of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating their caste claims. The court held that the Committee's failure to file an affidavit-in-reply despite opportunity and the lack of proper opportunity to the petitioners to present their case violated principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were quashed and the matters remitted back to the Committee for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Caste Certificate - Validity - The court noted that the Committee had not filed any affidavit-in-reply to counter the petitioners' contentions. In the absence of such response, the court found the impugned orders unsustainable and set them aside, directing the Committee to decide the matters afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioners. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners are sustainable when the Committee failed to file an affidavit-in-reply and the petitioners were not given adequate opportunity to defend their claims.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Committee for fresh consideration. The Committee shall decide the matters afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue in the posts they are holding, if any, subject to the outcome of the fresh decisions by the Committee. Rule is made absolute in both petitions with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Caste Scrutiny Committee
- Invalidity of caste claim
- Affidavit-in-reply
- Opportunity of hearing
- Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules
- 2003
