When the matter 4 Civil Appeal Nos 10387 10388 of 2018 5 Civil Appeal Nos 10396 of 2018 travelled in appeal before this Court, a two judge Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 10 October 2018, numbered that the same issue had earlier been companysidered by the High Court, leading to a judgment dated 1 November 2012 in Writ Petition No 5198 of 2009 and companynected matters.
The first respondent did number submit a fresh caste certificate, but approached the issuing authority and then submitted a letter dated 14 August 2014 to the appellant whereby the issuing authority had stated that the caste certificate had been issued from the office of the Executive Magistrate.
5 The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 11 July 2016, issued a direction to the effect that the services of the first respondent were liable to be protected, in view of the judgment of its Full Bench in Arun Sonone.
The first respondent claimed the benefit of belonging to a Schedule Tribe on the basis of a caste certificate dated 17 August 1984 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Hingna.
On 3 August 2015, the first respondent applied for verification of his caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee.
The Scrutiny Committee numbered, in the companyrse of its order, that the first respondent had submitted an application on 15 February 2016 merely seeking protection of his service.
The appellant then addressed a companymunication on 14 July 2011 to the issuing authority which, by a companymunication dated 9 May 2014, informed the appellant that the caste certificate was number registered in its records.
By an order dated 25 April 2016, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim.
4 Aggrieved by the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent instituted a writ petition1 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur.
12 In Barapatre, the appellants were in appeal before this Court against the orders passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
As Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2020.01.29 the record shows, he belongs to the Dhangar companymunity a numberadic tribe and number to 165537 IST Reason the Dhangad companymunity listed as a Scheduled Tribe for Maharashtra .
3 The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant by the appellant on the basis of a claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, namely, the Dhangad companymunity.
The appellant called upon the first respondent to submit the caste certificate by a letter dated 15 February 2011.
The documents pertaining to the first respondent and his father were scrutinized by the Committee which came to the companyclusion that there was numbermerit in the claim of the first respondent of belonging to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe.
The relief which was sought in the writ petition was for the protection of his services in view of a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Arun Sonone v State of Maharashtra2 Arun Sonone .
The first respondent submitted an application before the Scrutiny Committee on 15 February 2016.
It numbered that the documents which had been submitted by the first respondent pertained only to the Dhangar Community and number to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe.
The Scrutiny Committee observed that the first respondent was well aware of the fact that he did number belong to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe, but belonged to the Dhangar Community, which is a numberadic tribe.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Delay companydoned.
The High Court numbered that the appellants had declined to subject themselves to a scrutiny of their caste certificate, as a companysequence of which their services were directed to be discontinued.
2 Leave granted.
In August 2014, the first respondent was called upon to submit a fresh caste certificate.
The first respondent also challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee.
