JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Bhangade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur, whereby the caste claim of the petitioners as belonging to Halba, Scheduled Tribe, came to be invalidated. 4. Shri Bhangade, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 11-12-1996 already decided the caste claim of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was declared as belonging to Halba, Scheduled Tribe. The said certificate validating his caste is annexed by the petitioner to the petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that at later stage, some member of the society complained about the validity of the caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and on the basis of such complaint, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued notice to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of verification of the caste claim of the petitioner. It is contended that since the caste validity certificate was already issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, referred to hereinabove, the petitioner filed written application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 23-4-1999 and informed the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the caste validity certificate in the case of the petitioner was already issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 11-12-1996. The learned Counsel contended that in the circumstances, the petitioner did not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee again for verification of his caste claim. It is submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds; first, that once the caste validity certificate is issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is estopped from reconsidering the said aspect once again even though there is a complaint made by the member of the Society in this regard. Second ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the order is violative of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not heard in the matter before passing the impugned order. 7. Mrs. Second ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the order is violative of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not heard in the matter before passing the impugned order. 7. Mrs. Deshpande learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee does not dispute that vide order dated 11-12-1996, the petitioner was granted validity certificate by the then Caste Scrutiny Committee which was subject to final decision in S.L.P. No. 16372 of 1985. It is further contended that the validity certificate dated 11-12-1996 declares the petitioner as belonging to Halba Koshti i.e. sub-caste of Koshti caste and, therefore, the caste claim of the candidate was treated valid for the purpose of treating him as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2944 of 1984 decided on 4/6th September, 1985. 8. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel further contended that the Supreme Court has finally disposed of the S.L.P. No. 16372 of 1985 and it has been held that it is not permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if not so specifically mentioned. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that the certificate which was issued in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court cannot be said to be sustainable in law. 9. Considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. The validity certificate dated 11-12-1996 was issued by the Committee whereby the petitioner was declared to be candidate belonging to Halba Koshti (sub-caste of Koshti) and, therefore, treated him to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. It is not in dispute that this certificate was issued subject to final decision of S.L.P. No. 16372 of 1985. The Apex Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others)1, reported in 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)620 has observed that it is not permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribe Order if not so specifically mentioned. 10. The Apex Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others)1, reported in 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)620 has observed that it is not permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribe Order if not so specifically mentioned. 10. It is not in dispute that in the Schedule Tribe Order, Caste Halba alone is mentioned to be a caste falls within the ambit of Scheduled Tribe category and there is no caste Halba Koshti falling within the category of Scheduled Tribe. The caste Halba Koshti being considered as sub-caste of Koshti by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, it was observed in the validity certificate dated 11-12-1996 that the petitioner can be treated to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment, no authority including the Caste Scrutiny Committee is entitled/permissible to declare or observe that a Tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes order, if not so specifically mentioned. The validity certificate dated 11-12-1996 issued by the then Caste Scrutiny Committee undoubtedly is invalid in law and cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction to do so and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the said validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The contention raised by the learned Counsel in this regard is totally misconceived and completely devoid of substance and is rejected. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations made in the last para of the judgment of the Apex Court for the purpose of seeking benefit of permanency in the employment. I am afraid that these observations also may not help the petitioner since the validity certificate dated 11-12-1996 issued to the petitioner has been held to be invalid in law in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court itself and though the impugned order is quashed and set aside, the same is only on the technical ground of principles of natural justice and the matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This aspect of the matter would depend upon the outcome of the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is directed to reconsider the caste claim of the petitioner within the stipulated period. 12. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee further submitted that though the petitioner was asked to appear by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of defending his caste claim, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is violative of principles of natural justice. 13. Considered the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respective parties in this regard it is no doubt true that the Caste Scrutiny Committee in fact issued notice to the petitioner to appear before it for the purposes of hearing of the matter, therefore, the Committee has given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioner on the basis of the earlier validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, was under impression that it is not necessary to reconsider the caste claim afresh by the Caste Scrutiny Committee since the said exercise was once undertaken and validity certificate has already been granted to the petitioner, under this misconception of fact, the petitioner though appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not participate in the proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner. It will be appropriate, in the circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider afresh. Since the copy of the Police Vigilance Cell Report has already been served on the petitioner, it is not necessary to serve it again. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to dispose of the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merit within a period of four month from the date of receipt of this judgment. 15. In the result, the rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. --