JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard both sides. 2. This is another case in a row where the Scrutiny Committee has faltered in its duty to comply with the required procedure. 3. The main grievance in this writ petition is that the copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell was not furnished to the petitioner. The only stand taken in the reply filed before this Court on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee is that the Vigilance Cell Report was forwarded to the employer of the petitioner and, therefore, it must be presumed that the same was supplied to the petitioner. This plea, in my view, is wholly unacceptable. Besides this, I find that there is no mention in the impugned order that the Vigilance Cell Report was called for and considered by the Committee. 4. The rights of the parties cannot be determined on the basis of presumption as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent-Committee. Since there is no reference in the impugned order about the Vigilance Cell Report; or about the supply of the copy of the said report to the candidate, there is no alternative but to conclude that the Scrutiny Committee has not even adverted to Vigilance Cell Report even if the same was prepared and submitted before the Committee. This conclusion is based on the plain reading of the impugned order which makes no reference to the existence or consideration of any Vigilance Cell Report when the impugned order came to be passed. Taking any view of the matter, the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny since it has not even adverted to the Vigilance Cell Report or the fact that the same has been furnished to the petitioner. 5. It has been observed in the past that several matters have been allowed by this Court on such technical grounds of non-compliance of the required procedure. This is a serious matter. It not only paves way to the pseudo candidates to pursue remedy before the Court of Law by successfully raising such technical objections so that the matter remains pending in the Court for years to come and taking advantage of such delay, occupy the post which they do not deserve. This is a serious matter. It not only paves way to the pseudo candidates to pursue remedy before the Court of Law by successfully raising such technical objections so that the matter remains pending in the Court for years to come and taking advantage of such delay, occupy the post which they do not deserve. In the process, an undeserving candidate occupies the post or office and the person for whom reservation has been created, is deprived of the benefit which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Besides this, the inevitable effect is that orders passed by the Committee are eventually set aside by this Court; ordering remand of the case for fresh enquiry, entailing into loss of public exchequer and the priceless judicial time. 6. It is high time that an appropriate enquiry be made into the state of affairs prevailing in the offices of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and to take such remedial measures including to educate the members of the Committee of the proper procedure as enunciated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions with a view to obviate their orders being lightly interfered with by the courts on such technical grounds of non-compliance of the mandatory procedure. It is observed that, most of the cases that have succeeded before this Court, are due to non-compliance of procedural requirements alone. Since this is a serious matter, it would be appropriate to send copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra to take appropriate remedial measures. 7. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for holding de novo enquiry and decide the same afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. Petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26th September, 2000 so as to enable the Caste Scrutiny Committee to fix next date of hearing. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that direction be issued to reinstate the petitioner in service. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 contends that since the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been set aside, albeit on technical ground, the petitioner may be reinstated provided he shall not be entitled for back wages till his caste claim is finally decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 contends that since the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been set aside, albeit on technical ground, the petitioner may be reinstated provided he shall not be entitled for back wages till his caste claim is finally decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner shall not claim any back wages if he is reinstated in service and paid his future salary for the period for which he would work till the matter is finally decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 9. In the circumstances, the petitioner be reinstated in service on the aforesaid condition. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any equity if the Caste Scrutiny Committee negatives his caste claim. If the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is pronounced against the petitioner, same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of service of the said order on the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy available to him. 10. Rule made absolute on the above terms. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----