JUDGMENT : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, a retired teacher having opted for a voluntary retirement, is aggrieved by the communication, dated 20/07/2017, by which, respondent No.1 has directed her to submit her tribe validity certificate in view of her appointment having been made purportedly under the scheduled tribe category on 29/07/1987, as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement on health grounds on 25/01/2017. 3. Having considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates, we find that the controversy emerging from these proceedings has its roots in the factum of appointment of the petitioner as a Assistant Teacher. The contention of the petitioner is that she never sought a tribe certificate, though she belongs to the Halba tribe. She applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, in pursuance to a general advertisement published in the State of Maharashtra. She has undergone the selection process without relying upon her scheduled tribe status and she was appointed from the open category. Her appointment letter, dated 29/07/1987 indicates no category, under which, she has been selected and appointed. It is contended that as the petitioner had applied from the open category and had never stated her tribe in her application form, she was considered for appointment from the open category. 4. Our attention is drawn to the interview invitation letter, dated 12/01/1987, received by the petitioner from the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, calling upon her to submit her S.S.C. Certificate, her Marks Memo of the 10th standard examination and her Markssheet with regard to the D.Ed. examination. Since, the petitioner had never applied from any reserved category, she was not called upon to produce any tribe certificate. 5. The petitioner then points out a communication, dated 21/11/2008, received by her from the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Saoner, by which she was called upon to tender her caste/tribe validity certificate or to produce a copy of her appointment order to indicate that she was appointed from the open category. It is stated that as the petitioner had not applied from the scheduled tribe category and had not secured appointment under the said category, she did not tender her scheduled tribe certificate. She continued in the employment till her opting for voluntary retirement on 25/01/2017, as she was diagnosed with a lung disease. It is stated that as the petitioner had not applied from the scheduled tribe category and had not secured appointment under the said category, she did not tender her scheduled tribe certificate. She continued in the employment till her opting for voluntary retirement on 25/01/2017, as she was diagnosed with a lung disease. Her application for voluntary retirement was accepted and she was relieved from employment. It is further pointed out that in 1996, she was eligible for promotion. For personal reasons, she chose to decline the said promotion and by choice continued on the position that she held. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioner had applied for an appointment. From the original record available with him, he is unable to point out that the petitioner had applied for selection and appointment under the scheduled tribe category or that she had opted for the post available to the reserved category. He further submits on the basis of record that the appointment order of the petitioner does not convey that she was appointed from the scheduled tribe category or that she was selected for having belonged to any reserved category. 7. The learned Advocate points out a sheet available in the original record, which is titled in handwriting as “HINDI” The contention is that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No.7, Interview Sr. No.989 (her maiden name) and which was shown under the scheduled tribe category. He then submits that the service-book contains the description of her scheduled tribe at Sr. No.2. It is, therefore, canvassed that the petitioner will have to be treated as being selected from the scheduled tribe category under a reservation and not from the open category. 8. We find that the following aspects are germane to this case:- (a) The petitioner applied for employment and did not claim selection and appointment under the reserved category. (b) She was called upon to produce documents on the date of the interview and as she had not claimed selection and appointment from any reserved category, she had to tender only three documents referred to hereinabove. (c) The appointment order of the petitioner does not in any way convey that she was selected from the reserved category (though she belonged to the scheduled tribe). (c) The appointment order of the petitioner does not in any way convey that she was selected from the reserved category (though she belonged to the scheduled tribe). (d) The handwritten selection list available in the original record of the respondents does not inspire confidence to the extent of the inclusion of the petitioner in a select list meant for the scheduled tribe category, when there are no documents to indicate that she had applied for selection and appointment under a reserved category. (e) The communication received by the petitioner, dated 21/11/2008 gives her an option of either producing her tribe validity certificate or tendering a copy of her appointment order, so as to be treated from the open category. 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not tendered her validity certificate in response to the communication, dated 21/11/2008 and as the appointment order of the petitioner does not indicate her appointment on a reserved category meant for the scheduled tribes, same will have to be treated as being a selection from the open category. 10. In her entire service of 29 years, she has not availed of any benefits, which could be extended to a candidate belonging to the scheduled tribe and who is selected and appointed from the reserved category. 11. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned communication, dated 20/07/2017 stands quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed from the open category. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.