2 was number reinstated in service.
879 of 1999, the respondent No.2 applied to the Government to reinstate him in service claiming that he belongs to S.B.C. category and should be granted protection of Government Resolution dated June 15, 1995.
2 was holding the post of Assistant Teacher temporarily, which was specifically reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
The Court further directed respondent No.
2 was subject to verification of his tribe claim.
After dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent No.
2 received numberice in that behalf on November 12, 1997.
2 applied to the appellant to appoint him as an Assistant Teacher.
2 indicated that he was a Hindu Koli.
By the said letter the appellant was directed to take necessary action in the matter.
2 appeared before the said Committee on December 30, 1999 and prayed to grant time.
Some of the documents submitted by respondent No.
In spite of the protection given by the Government, the respondent No.
2 was number interested in proceeding further with the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee and was delaying the entire proceedings on some or the other pretext.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows Claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the respondent No.
2 filed writ petition No.
On the said date also the respondent No.
The said submission made on behalf of respondent No.
He challenged the order terminating his services as well as order dated November 6, 1997, passed by the Scrutiny Committee.
2 was forwarded for verification to Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee the Scrutiny Committee for short .
2 was number interested in prosecuting the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee.
2 did number appear before the said Committee at all and, therefore, the Scrutiny Committee decided to close the matter of verification of tribe claim of the respondent No.2, by order dated November 13, 2000.
2 by order dated May 4, 1998.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, by judgment dated April 17, 2000, dismissed the said writ petition with the observation that the respondent No.
The said Resolution dated June 15, 1995, inter alia, specifies as to which Caste should be companysidered as Special Backward Class.
2 was accepted by the High Court.
The Rural Development and Water Conservation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, therefore, addressed a letter dated February 6, 2002 to the appellant stating that the respondent No.
2, i.e., Gajanan Sadashiv Ghule, was allowed by setting aside the order of termination of his services dated May 4, 1998.
2 requested for more time, which was granted by the Scrutiny Committee.
2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher by order dated October 6, 1992 companyrect date of the appointment is January 16, 1993 by the appellant on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and even if the certificate indicating that he belongs to Scheduled Tribes was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, he would be entitled to get protection in service in view of Government Resolution dated June 15, 1995 because he has submitted a validity certificate indicating that he belongs to Special Backward Class.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties and companysidered the documents forming part of the appeal.
2 appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on January 29, 1999, but requested for grant of time and, therefore, he was called upon to appear on December 30, 1999.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has allowed the same by judgment dated August 31, 2004, giving rise to the instant appeal.
2 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the matter afresh after affording necessary opportunity of hearing to him.
It was pointed out to the Division Bench of the High Court, hearing the said matter, that interview was fixed by the Scrutiny Committee on November 6, 1997, but the respondent No.
2 was selected by the Subordinate Selection Board from the Scheduled Tribes category and was appointed as Assistant Teacher temporarily on January 16, 1993.
The Scrutiny Committee, after giving the respondent No.
Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee adjourned the hearing to June 26, 2000.
The respondent No.
2 to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on January 29, 1999 along with all necessary documents.
The respondent No.
1764 of 2003 challenging the order dated May 4, 1998 terminating his services.
2 filed Writ Petition No.
2 an opportunity of hearing, invalidated the tribe Certificate by decision dated November 6, 1997.
Thereupon, the respondent No.
The respondent No.
Thereafter, the respondent No.
Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No.
1660 of 1998 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The record shows that thereafter the respondent No.
After a lapse of about three years from the date of dismissal of Writ Petition No.
The tribe Certificate produced by the respondent No.
The appointment of the respondent No.
Therefore, the appellant terminated services of the respondent No.
Again, the respondent No.
879 of 1999 challenging the order dated May 4, 1998 by which his services were terminated by the appellant.
2 appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on April 24, 2000, but prayed to grant time.
The respondent No.
The High Court set aside the order dated November 6, 1997 invalidating caste claim of the respondent No.
1764 of 2003 whereby writ petition filed by respondent No.
M. PANCHAL, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 31, 2004, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No.
