Judgment :- SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari, requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 17-4-2007, passed by the respondent Committee, which is annexed at Exhibit-B, negating the social status claim of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo community, a Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of the said caste certificate, he was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in Mahatma Gandhi College at Ahmedpur, District Latur against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, his caste claim was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) for verification purpose by his employer. The petitioner produced several documents including validity certificates of his close relatives on parental side to support his claim. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the said Committee directed the enquiry through Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Officer i.e. Dy.S.P. conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the said Committee on 16-4-2004. According to the said Committee i.e. the respondent, the said report was sent to the petitioner along with covering letter on 31-9-2004 by post which is annexed to the reply filed by the Committee at Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2. It is the contention of the respondent Committee that, by the said letter, the respondent Committee gave opportunity to the petitioner to file reply in respect of the said report. Thereafter, it is the contention of the petitioner that he was called for the interview on 20-2-2007. 4. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was never served with the copy of the Vigilance Officer's report and, therefore, he could not file reply to the said report. Thereafter, the respondent Committee passed impugned order on 17-4-2007 (Exhibit B) and invalidated the petitioner's tribe claim. 5. 4. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was never served with the copy of the Vigilance Officer's report and, therefore, he could not file reply to the said report. Thereafter, the respondent Committee passed impugned order on 17-4-2007 (Exhibit B) and invalidated the petitioner's tribe claim. 5. According to the petitioner, Rule 12(8) of the Rules of 2003 speaks that if the Committee is not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, it shall issue a show-cause-notice to the candidate and serve copy of the report by registered Post A.D. and the said notice shall indicate that reply, if any, be filed within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Vigilance Officer's report is adverse to the petitioner and, therefore, service of the copy of the said report upon the petitioner is essential especially when it is adverse to the petitioner, and non furnishing the copy of the said report would amount to denying the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. 6. We have perused the contents of the present petition and annexures annexed therewith as well as we have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and original file and also perused the contents of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner herein and heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties anxiously. 7. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent discloses that the copy of the Vigilance Report was sent with covering letter dated 31-9-2004 vide Outward No.7409, on the address of the petitioner by post. The respondent Committee states that it believes that the said letter was duly served on the petitioner on the given address and the said copy of the letter and copy of the Vigilance Report are annexed to the said reply at Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively. 8. We have perused the contents of the said affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent - Committee (paragraph No.2) carefully and the date of the said letter mentioned therein is 31-9-2004, bearing Outward No.7409. Hence, we also checked back the said date with the copy of the letter (Annexure R-1) and it also bears the date as 31-9-2004. Undisputedly, the month of September is having only 30 days and the date of the said letter cannot be 31-9-2004. Hence, we also checked back the said date with the copy of the letter (Annexure R-1) and it also bears the date as 31-9-2004. Undisputedly, the month of September is having only 30 days and the date of the said letter cannot be 31-9-2004. Hence, the contention of the respondent that the Vigilance Report was sent to the petitioner along with covering letter dated 31-9-2004 is apparently incorrect. 9. Apart from that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee was unable to produce any proof of acknowledgement to establish that the said Vigilance Report was served upon the petitioner any time as alleged. We have also perused the original file and no acknowledgement of the petitioner was found therein to hold that the petitioner was served with the said report, as alleged. 10. Hence, in view of the said position, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the Vigilance Report as alleged by the respondent and, therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner could not get the opportunity to counter the said report and/or to file his reply and/ or to give his explanation thereto especially when the said report is adverse to the petitioner. 11. Hence, in this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17-4-2007, passed by the respondent Committee, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply to the Vigilance Report, violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order dated 17-4-2007, passed by the respondent-Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside and matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent Committee, directing the respondent-Committee to serve the copy of the said Vigilance Report upon the petitioner, with his acknowledgement in writing and to0 give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply thereto and, thereafter to pass the order afresh in accordance with law, within the period of four months and the petitioner is required to be protected till then as per interim order dated 7-6-2007 12. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17-4-2007, rendered by the respondent Committee, annexed at Exhibit-B, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent Committee with direction that the respondent Committee to serve the copy of the Vigilance Report upon the petitioner under his acknowledgement in writing and to give him reasonable opportunity to file reply thereto and thereafter shall pass order afresh in accordance with law, within the period of four months and interim order passed in present petition on 7-6-2007 shall be effective till passing of the order by respondent Committee afresh and fifteen days thereafter. 13. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.