JUDGMENT - DAUD S.M., J.:---This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order of the 1st respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Village Police Patil in relation to village Kupta, Tal. Manora, Dist. Akola. 2. Ram S. Patil, the then Police Patil of village Kupta expired on 30th June, 1984. A proclamation was issued on 23rd July, 1984 inviting applications to fill up the vacancy. Petitioners were the two out of the seven persons trying for the post. The 1st respondent, who is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at Mangrulpir, appraised the claims of the seven aspirants and on 21st January, 1985 selected respondent No. 2 to fill up the vacancy. 3. Petitioners contend that the rejection of their claims by respondent No. 1 was on extraneous grounds as was the selection of respondent No. 2. This contention has to be upheld. The claim of petitioner No. 1 was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted the required documents vis a vis educational qualifications and land holdings etc. either at the time of the giving of the application or at the time of the interview. Petitioner No. 1 claims that in his application he had mentioned that he would be producing the requisite documents at the time of the interview. The proclamation did not require that the documents in relation to educational qualifications be appended to the application. Assuming that at the time of the interview, the requisite documents were required to be produced, petitioner No. 1 was not called upon to produce the same. In the normal circumstances, the factual correctness of the recitals appearing in the order of the 1st respondent would not have been doubted. However, the unfortunate phrasing of the impugned order gives room for believing that the 1st respondent was determined to somehow appoint respondent No. 2, and this, in total disregard of the relevant factors. This as we shall show later, disentitles the credence which is normally given to the factual recitals appearing in the judicial and quasi judicial order. 4. In so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his claim was rejected on the ground that being a member of the Village Panchayat, he was politically interested and it would be unsafe to make him the Police Patil of the village. 4. In so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his claim was rejected on the ground that being a member of the Village Panchayat, he was politically interested and it would be unsafe to make him the Police Patil of the village. It is contended and rightly so, that the only relevant factors to be taken into consideration were the five conditions enumerated in the petition at page 6. These were that he should not be below 25 years or above 45 years at the date of the appointment. Secondly, the person seeking appointment should have passed the 6th standard examination. The third condition was that the applicant had to be a resident of the village of which he was seeking to be appointed as the Police Patil. The fourth requirement was that of physical fitness and the last was that of good character. Involvement in politics, irrespective of whether or not a member of the Village Panchayat, can be so described, was not a disqualification under the rules. Therefore, this factor could not have been utilised by the 1st respondent to exclude the claim of petitioner No. 2. One of the aspirants had the misfortune, according to the 1st respondent's appraisal, of belonging to the tribal population. This class had a strength of 25 to 30 in the village and the dominant sections were the people belonging to the Mali and Maratha castes. The 1st respondent thought it undesirable to appoint a person from the tribal population in a village, the population of which had for its majority, people belonging to Mali and Maratha castes. Article 15 of the Constitution forbids discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, etc. etc. Here is the case of a responsible officer of the State disapproving the appointment of a tribal to man a minor office in the State bureaucracy because he happens not to belong to either of the dominant groups in the village. As if this was not enough, the 1st respondent excluded S.W. Deshmukh, because that person belonged to the Maratha caste which caste was a numerical minority as compared to Malis. Respondent No. 2 was chosen because he belonged to the dominant and majority community in the village and also because he had sufficient land holdings. As if this was not enough, the 1st respondent excluded S.W. Deshmukh, because that person belonged to the Maratha caste which caste was a numerical minority as compared to Malis. Respondent No. 2 was chosen because he belonged to the dominant and majority community in the village and also because he had sufficient land holdings. In other words, according to the preceptions of respondent No. 1, the Police Patil had to belong to the dominant social or ethnic group in the village and all those aspiring to the post of the Police Patil, if they belonged to the minority or disadvantaged sections, where automatically liable to be excluded. No greater travesty of the Constitution or the canons of fairness can be conceived of. The appointment of respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and the matter remitted to the present incumbent of the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangrulpir to consider afresh the claims of the aspirants to the post of the Police Patil. The present incumbent shall act according to the law and take special pains to avoid errors pointed out in the impugned order. Rule in the above terms is made absolute, with parties being left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly. -----