JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard forthwith. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 5-4-1999 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny Verification of Tribe Claim, Nagpur whereby the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. 3. Shri Choudhari, learned Counsel at the outset challenged the order apart from the other grounds, mainly on the ground of jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee who has passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel contended that the caste scrutiny committee at the relevant time did not have jurisdiction to verify or scrutinize the caste certificate of the Central Government Employees issued by the District Magistrate. It is further contended that the petitioner is serving in the Central Government Employment in the Department of Central Government Health Scheme, Nagpur. Services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Government of India including the matters pertaining to the caste verification. It is contended that the caste scrutiny committee constituted by the State Government for verification of the caste claim of the State Government Employees has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the caste claim of the Central Government Employees. 4. It is further contended that the Central Government has issued office Memorandum No. 12017/10/97-SCD (R.L.Cell) by the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare, New Delhi dated 25-11-1997 wherein it is stated that "however appointing authority/education institution should verify the caste status of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate through the District Magistrate of the place where the candidate or his family ordinarily resides." It is contended that in view of this office memorandum the caste scrutiny committee who has passed the impugned order suffered from lack of jurisdiction which has rendered the impugned order not only invalid, but nullity. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also challenged the impugned order on the ground of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner on the basis of the above referred office memorandum dated 25-11-97 was under the impression that the caste scrutiny committee did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the caste scrutiny committee, personally at the time of the hearing of the matter. However the petitioner has sent the objection dated 12-1-1999 in respect of the jurisdiction of the committee, through department. The petitioner did not appear before the caste scrutiny committee, personally at the time of the hearing of the matter. However the petitioner has sent the objection dated 12-1-1999 in respect of the jurisdiction of the committee, through department. Learned Counsel contended that in the circumstances of the present case the impugned order passed by the caste scrutiny committee is without hearing the petitioner and is therefore violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Government of India submitted that the issue in question in fact is concluded by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in case of (Shri Chintaman Sukalal Tawar)1, decided on 26-4-1996. It is contended that the Division Bench in the above referred judgment particularly in para No. 2 observed thus: "As far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, it has already constituted a Caste Scrutiny Committee in the light of the decision in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). A statement has been made on behalf of the Union of India on affidavit and the said statement is reiterated by the learned Counsel before us, that the caste claims in respect of all backward classes will be referred to the scrutiny committee established by the State of Maharashtra and the same will not be restricted to persons belonging to Halba/Halbi Thakur and Mahadeo Koli Tribes. A further statement is made that the said Scrutiny Committee is recognized by the Union of India for employees of all Central Government Public Sector Undertakings and institutions." The learned Counsel contended that in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State, in view of the judgment in the case of (Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others)2, reported in 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690, it is empowered to verify/scrutinize the caste claim of the employees of the Central Government as well as public sector undertakings and institutions. 7. Heard Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the caste scrutiny committee respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the State of Maharashtra has constituted the committee for scrutiny and verification of the tribal claims at Nagpur, as per the ratio laid down and guidelines issued by Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. 7. Heard Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the caste scrutiny committee respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the State of Maharashtra has constituted the committee for scrutiny and verification of the tribal claims at Nagpur, as per the ratio laid down and guidelines issued by Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. It is further contended that the caste scrutiny committee is empowered to scrutinise/verify the caste claims of the employees of the Central Government. It is contended that annexure. R-7 to the reply/submissions filed by the Central Government dated 11-6-98 is a State Government resolution which in clear terms contemplates that the caste scrutiny committee is empowered to scrutinise the caste claims of the employees working under the Central Government who are permanent residents of the State of Maharashtra. It is further contended that the petitioner is permanent resident of Maharashtra and therefore, the caste scrutiny committee is competent to verify the caste claim of the petitioner. Mrs. Deshpande further submitted that the caste scrutiny committee which has passed the impugned order is a validly constituted caste scrutiny committee as per the directions of the Apex Court in the Madhuri Patil's case. It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chintaman Suklal Tawar has concluded the issue in question in respect of the question of the jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee in this regard. 8. Mrs. Deshpande, further contended that the order of the caste scrutiny committee even on merits is sustainable in law. It is submitted that the scrutiny committee has called the petitioner for hearing in the matter on 29-11-1995, however the petitioner did not appear, nor informed the caste scrutiny committee anything in this regard. It is further submitted that the caste scrutiny committee again vide letter dated 1-9-97 informed the petitioner that he should furnish the original caste certificate alongwith the required documents, for the purposes of verification of his caste claim. The petitioner vide letter dated 27-1-98 furnished some documents, however did not furnish the original caste certificate. Mrs. Deshpande further submitted that the matter was referred to the police Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The petitioner vide letter dated 27-1-98 furnished some documents, however did not furnish the original caste certificate. Mrs. Deshpande further submitted that the matter was referred to the police Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The Police Vigilance Cell furnished its report on 5-10-1998 copy of the said report was forwarded to the petitioner vide R.P.A.D. Letter dated 10-11-98 through his employer respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was called for hearing in the matter on 26-11-98. The petitioner did not appear on 26-11-98, neither informed anything in this regard to the committee. The caste scrutiny committee again vide R.P.A.D. letter dated 2-1-99 called petitioner for hearing on 18-1-1999, however the petitioner did not appear before the caste scrutiny committee for hearing on that date. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 18-1-99 the petitioner has submitted a representation/objection to the caste scrutiny committee about the jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee in view of the above referred office memorandum dated 25-11-1997. This aspect has been denied by the caste scrutiny committee. Mrs. Deshpande learned Counsel appearing for the respondent caste scrutiny committee submitted that record of the caste scrutiny committee does not reflect this aspect of the matter. It is contended that the caste scrutiny committee has given number of chances to the petitioner in order to put forth his claim before the caste scrutiny committee; however, the petitioner did not avail the same and therefore, the order cannot be said to be bad on this count. 10. It is contended that since the petitioner did not appear before the caste scrutiny committee, the caste scrutiny committee on 5-4-99 considered the caste claim of the petitioner, in the light of the report of the Police Vigilance Cell. The Police Vigilance Cell during the course of the inquiry, collected the document pertaining to the real uncle of the petitioner i.e. school register extract in which the caste is shown as Koshti though Police Vigilance Cell Report was served on the petitioner the petitioner did not offer any explanation in this regard either personally or in writing. The caste scrutiny committee considered these documents to be authentic, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba scheduled tribe, since the caste Koshti is not included in the category of schedule Tribe. The Counsel for respondent Nos. The caste scrutiny committee considered these documents to be authentic, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba scheduled tribe, since the caste Koshti is not included in the category of schedule Tribe. The Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therefore submitted that the impugned order passed needs to be maintained. 11. Considered the contention raised by respondent's Counsel, perused the impugned order, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to hereinabove. So far as the aspect of jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee to scrutinise/verify the caste claim of the employees of the Central Government is concerned, is in my opinion is no longer res integra and is completely concluded and covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chintaman Suklal Tawar. Similarly the State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 11-6-98, has further empowered the caste scrutiny committee to scrutinise/verify the caste claims of the Central Government Employees, who are permanent residents of the State of Maharashtra, the only requirement in my opinion in this regard is, the caste scrutiny committee must be constituted as per the directions and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case and the Central Government employee must be a permanent resident of the State. The caste scrutiny committee needs to refer the caste claim of the petitioner for the necessary verification and investigation to the Police Vigilance Cell. The Police Vigilance Cell carrys out the investigation on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his caste claim and is also required to conduct the investigation in view of the directions of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. The Police Vigilance Cell consists of personnel of the Local Police Department and they are entitled to carry out investigation in regard to the caste claim of the candidate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee or at the most within the State. The State Government taking this aspect into consideration issued the Government Resolution dated 11-6-98 and empowered the caste scrutiny committee to verify the caste claim of the Central Government Employee who is permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra. 12. The State Government taking this aspect into consideration issued the Government Resolution dated 11-6-98 and empowered the caste scrutiny committee to verify the caste claim of the Central Government Employee who is permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra. 12. Hence, though the caste scrutiny committee constituted in view of the directions in the Madhuri Patil's case is empowered to verify and scrutinise the caste claim of the Central Government employee, however, the employee must be permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra. 13. It is not in dispute that the caste scrutiny committee which has scrutinised the claim of the petitioner and passed the impugned order is legally constituted committee as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil's case. In that view of the matter the contention raised by the learned Counsel in respect of the jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee is misconceived devoid of substance and needs to be rejected. 14. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard by the caste scrutiny committee, also suffers from lack of merits. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the caste scrutiny committee would demonstrate that the petitioner was in fact given number of chances to appear before it for personal hearing. However, the petitioner chosen not to appear before the caste scrutiny committee and therefore, in my opinion, cannot be canvassed that the caste scrutiny committee has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. Hence the order cannot be declared invalid on this count. 15. It appears that the petitioner in view of the above referred Central Government Memorandum dated 25-11-1997 has misdirected himself in this regard however, it was incumbent on the petitioner to appear before the caste scrutiny committee and raise all these grounds on merits. 16. The misconception entertained by the petitioner that the committee has no jurisdiction to verify his caste claim on the basis of the Central Government Memorandum dated 25-11-1997, in my opinion cannot render the impugned order invalid and bad in law, when the committee in fact had a jurisdiction to do so and has also considered it on merit. 17. 16. The misconception entertained by the petitioner that the committee has no jurisdiction to verify his caste claim on the basis of the Central Government Memorandum dated 25-11-1997, in my opinion cannot render the impugned order invalid and bad in law, when the committee in fact had a jurisdiction to do so and has also considered it on merit. 17. So far as the merits of the matter is concerned the perusal of the order shows that the caste scrutiny committee has referred the matter to the Police Vigilance Cell for the necessary inquiry and during the course of the inquiry the Police Vigilance Cell has collected the documents i.e. the school register extract of the real uncle of the petitioner wherein the caste is shown as Koshti. It is not in dispute that caste Koshti is not included in the category of Scheduled Tribe. The caste scrutiny committee relied on this document for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the issue whether the petitioner could be terminated from services in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (Sarda Education Trust v. Nandulal Vishwanath Tate)2, 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)39 : 2000(1) Mh.L.J. page 1, may be kept open. Hence kept open. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, in my opinion, the order passed by the caste scrutiny committee is sustainable in law and no interference is called for . Hence petition dismissed no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----