JUDGMENT MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties by consent. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to ‘Bahana’ caste and entitled to get the caste validity certificate, as ‘Bahana’ is enlisted as a Scheduled Caste. The Competent Authority has issued caste certificate in 1988 that the petitioner belongs to Bahana Scheduled Caste, his religion is not mentioned in the said certificate, though his name suggests that he belongs to Muslim religion. In view of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, except Hindu, Sikhs and Buddhists, no other person who is a member of any other religion including Musalman is entitled to claim caste benefit. The respondent no.2 served him a show-cause notice dated 7.7.2010 asking him as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Live Stock Development Officer since he could not produce caste validity certificate and being a Musalman he is not entitled to claim the benefit. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said notice and sought ex-parte stay from this Court on 23.7.2010, which has been granted. 4. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents, has submitted that the said interim stay order was not served on the respondents and, therefore, the respondents in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued order of reversion on 29.7.2010. Thereafter, the said stay order was served on 2.8.2010. 5. The petitioner claims the benefit of belonging to the ‘Bahana’ caste on the basis of the certificate issued by the Competent Authority and submits that the show-cause notice which is issued on the basis that the certificate is not valid is not tenable since the question whether the petitioner belongs to the said caste mentioned in the certificate can only be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jati) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent appointing authority could not have taken any action for reverting the petitioner from the promoted post without having referred the matter of the validity of the petitioner’s caste certificate to the appropriate authority under Subsection (3) of Section 6 of the Act which reads as follows : “S. 6(3) : The appointing authority of the Central or State Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Cooperative Societies or any other Government aided institutions shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person selected for an appointment with the Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Cooperative Societies or any other Government aided institutions who has not obtained such certificate.” 6. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as belonging to a Scheduled Caste in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is a Muslim in view of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 which clearly specifies that no person who is a member of any religion other than Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist is entitled to the benefits available to a Scheduled Caste. Clause 3 reads as follows : “3. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of Scheduled Caste.” 7. Whatever be the merits of the contention, we are of the view that the scheme of the Act requires the appointing authority to refer the matter of the validity of the caste claimed by an employee to the Committee under Section 6(3) of the Act. The Committee alone has the power to decide the question of validity. The entire Section 6 reads as follows : “S. 6. The Committee alone has the power to decide the question of validity. The entire Section 6 reads as follows : “S. 6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee : (1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for verification of Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under subsection (1) of section 4 specifying in the said notification the functions and the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee or Committees, (2)After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned in section 3 may make an application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, (3) The appointing authority of the Central or State Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Cooperative Societies or any other Government aided institutions shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person selected for an appointment with the Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Cooperative Societies or any other Government aided institutions who has not obtained such certificate. (4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of the Caste Certificates and adhere to the time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate, as prescribed.” This provision sets up the forum for verification of caste certificates issued by Competent Authorities under the Act. Subsections (2) & (3) then provide for the persons who can invoke the forum for verification of caste certificates. Subsections (2) & (3) then provide for the persons who can invoke the forum for verification of caste certificates. Subsection (2) provides that any person after obtaining a caste certificate and desirous of availing the benefits or concessions provided to various categories in any public employment or admission to any educational institution or any other benefit under any special provision made under Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of India or for the purpose of contesting an elective post in any local authority or a cooperative society or for purchase of transfer of land from a tribal landholder or for any other purpose specified by the Government vide Section 3 may make an application to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such a caste certificate and for the issue of a validity certificate. 8. Subsection (3) provides that the appointing authority must make an application to the Scrutiny Committee for the verification of the caste certificate and issue of a validity certificate where a person who has been selected for appointment has not obtained such a certificate. The Legislature by enacting Subsections (2) and (3) has ensured that the caste certificate of any person availing of a benefit or concession provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Class, who has obtained a caste certificate is scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee established for the purpose of Subsection (1) of the Act. In relation to matters of employment, the Legislature has ensured that caste certificate of a person who has availed of these benefits but has not submitted his certificate for such scrutiny, does not escape such scrutiny upon his selection for appointment by casting a duty on the appointing authority to make an application to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of the caste certificate of such a person if he has not obtained such a certificate. There is notable difference in the language employed by the two Subsections. Subsection (2) states that such a person desirous of obtaining benefits “may make an application”, whereas Subsection (3) states that the appointing authority who selects such a person for appointment “shall make an application”. 9. Having regard to the purpose of the legislation which is to ensure that the benefits and concessions made available to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, etc. Subsection (2) states that such a person desirous of obtaining benefits “may make an application”, whereas Subsection (3) states that the appointing authority who selects such a person for appointment “shall make an application”. 9. Having regard to the purpose of the legislation which is to ensure that the benefits and concessions made available to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, etc. are not availed of by others who do not belong to such categories and to curb the rampant diversion of such benefits to impostors, there is no doubt that the Subsection (2) must be read as conferring on the appointing authority a power coupled with a duty to exercise it. The legal and the factual context in which such a power is to be exercised combines the power with an obligation to exercise it. Such a power has been described in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford. (1880) 5 App Cas 214 at 222-223, quoted with approval therewith by the Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, (1952) SCR 135 at 147 : ( AIR 1952 SC 16 at p.21) thus : “There may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so.” In Alcock Ashdown and Company, Limited .vs. The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay reported in 1923 Privy Council 138, the Privy Council considered whether a public officer could be entitled to refuse to do a thing which he was called upon to do by the Legislature without justification and whether such a Revenue Officer could be directed by the Court to compel him to give relief to citizen. The case arose in the context of a power conferred on the Chief Revenue Authority to draw a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. The case arose in the context of a power conferred on the Chief Revenue Authority to draw a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. Though the provision stated that the Chief Revenue Authority may refer the case, the Privy Council held that in view of the law laid down in the case of Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford (supra) that there was a duty cast upon the Chief Revenue Authority to state a case for the opinion of the Court in the following word : “If the assessee applies for a case, the Authority must state it, unless he can say that it is frivolous or unnecessary. He is not to wait for the Court to order him to do it; it will be a misfeasance and a breach of the statutory duty if he does not do it..................... In their Lordships’ view, always supposing that there is a serious point of law to be considered, there does lie a duty upon the Chief Revenue Authority to state a case for the opinion of the Court, and if he does not appreciate that there is such a serious point, it is in the power of the Court to control him and to order him to state case.” In the statute with which we are concerned, the appointing authority is not called upon to assess whether the caste certificate is of such a nature as requires a reference to the Scrutiny Committee for its validity. It must do so whenever it finds that the person who has been selected has not got the certificate duly verified by Scrutiny Committee. 10. We are thus of the view that Subsection (3) of Section 6 confers on the appointing authority a power coupled with a duty to make an application to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for validation of the caste certificate of a person selected for appointment where such a person has not obtained such a validity certificate. It is not open for the appointing authority to avoid the step of referring such a caste certificate for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and issue a show-cause notice for taking action against an employee on the basis that the candidate does not belong to a Scheduled Caste, etc. It is not open for the appointing authority to avoid the step of referring such a caste certificate for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and issue a show-cause notice for taking action against an employee on the basis that the candidate does not belong to a Scheduled Caste, etc. howsoever justified the appointing authority may be in entertaining a doubt about the genuineness of a caste certificate. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned show-cause notice dated 7.7.2010 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on Friday, i.e. 17.9.2010 and the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the matter within two weeks, i.e. on or before 1.10.2010. The parties are directed to cooperate in the matter. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Steno-copy of order is granted.