After the lapse of a period of 9 years, respondent number5 filed companyplaint dated 9.1.2009, through an advocate before the Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of recalling the said validity certificate, on the ground that the appellant had obtained employment by way of misrepresentation, and that he does number actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category.
On the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad hereinafter referred to as the, Corporation on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the Scheduled Tribes category.
However, the learned companynsel remained unable to point out from the original record, any proceeding or event, by way of which, it companyld be ascertained that the appellant was in fact, given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, or to show that all the said witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant.
Vide its impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition without going into the merits of the case.
In view thereof, this Court vide order dated 11.5.2012, directed the learned companynsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, to produce the original record of the matter and to file an affidavit with respect to whether the appellant had been given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses that were examined by the other side, and also with respect to whether the other applications filed by the appellant, were decided upon.
5 may file the affidavit as on what date he appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and what was the material produced by him and as to whether on that petitioner had a numberice of his appearance before the Scrutiny Committee and whether the Committee has allowed the petitioner to cross examine the respondent No.
Aggrieved, respondent number5 challenged the order dated 13.3.2009, by filing Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay Aurangabad Bench , praying for quashing of the order dated 13.3.2009, and directing the Scrutiny Committee to hold de numbero enquiry, with respect to the appellants caste certificate.
The Corporation referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee hereinafter referred to as the, Scrutiny Committee .
None of the said applications have been decided till number.
It further directed the Committee to decide the said matter within a period of 6 months.
Hence, this present appeal.
The allegations against the appellant stating that he obtained the said caste certificate fraudulently, have been repeated.
The appellant filed an application dated 28.2.2012, for the purpose of recalling 3 witnesses, namely, Sikandar Gulab Tadvi, Bhagchand Ganpatsing Pardeshi and Bahadursing Mukhtarsing Patil, so that he may cross examine them.
In response to the said order, respondent number 5 filed an affidavit in Court on 5.11.2012.
The appellant also filed another application on the same day, seeking a period of 30 days time, to file his reply as is required within the provisions of Rule 12 8 of the Rules 2003, and also another application for the purpose of calling of records from the office of the Tehsildar, to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate impugned.
In order to determine the genuineness and sincerity of respondent number 5, this Court on 29.10.2012 adjourned the matter until 5.11.2012, directing respondent number 5 to act as under Meanwhile, respondent No.
In fact, the appellant professed the religion of Islam and therefore, companyld number be a Scheduled Tribe.
The Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the appellant belonging to Bhil Tadvi Scheduled Tribes .
The Vigilance Cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee, upon companyducting vigilance enquiry, vide order dated 29.12.1998, found that the appellant did, in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi Scheduled Tribes and thus, the said certificate was verified.
The appellant companytested the said petition, denying all the allegations made by respondent number5.
Respondent number 5 has number mentioned in the affidavit, the date on which he appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, number has he responded to the query raised with respect to whether he had produced any evidence to support his allegations, or whether the appellant was allowed to cross examine any of the witnesses, or if in fact, he simply examined all of them himself.
However, while doing so, the High Court set aside the order dated 13.3.2009, and remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, directing it to hear all the parties companycerned in accordance with law, as regards the allegations made by respondent number5 in the companyplaint.
Thus, the High Court companymitted an error by directing the Scrutiny Committee to entertain the companyplaint filed by respondent number5.
Further, he was also unable to satisfy this Court, with respect to the circumstances under which, the applications filed by the appellant on 28.2.2012, including the one to recall witnesses and permit him to cross examine them, have been kept pending, without passing any order in relation to either one of them.
In pursuance of the said order issued by the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee examined the case of the parties.
In pursuance of the said order, the original record was produced.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows The companypetent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi Scheduled Tribes .
B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the High Court of Bombay Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009, filed by respondent number5, challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.
