<p>The Bombay High Court has asked Maharashtra Government to conduct a probe to find out how a case of issuing SC/ST certificate to an applicant was rejected by the relevant committee when its Chairman was absent during the hearing, in clear violation of rules.<br /><br />Acting on a petition, it also asked the State to probe allegations that a remark in pencil on the rejection letter to obtain the Chairman's signature was erased from the original document.</p>.<p>The Court felt this was a serious lapse as the hearing was conducted by only two officers of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p>.<p>It asked the State to look into the conduct of the panel's Chairman, Yevle Patil, who was not present during the proceedings on April 28, 2011.<br /><br />The HC asked the Government to inform what action it proposed to take against the officer concerned if there was a lapse on his part.<br /><br />According to rules, all the members, including Chairman, are required to be present during the hearing to issue caste certificates.<br /><br />The petitioner produced before the Court a copy of the rejection order which contained a note written with pencil that Patil's signature was to be obtained. However, the official document tabled before the court did not contain that note as it was apparently erased, a Bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar observed recently.<br /><br />The case pertained to one Amrutlal Kanjaraiya, who had got a job in Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) in reserved category. He had to produce a certificate from the Scrutiny Committee to show he belonged to SC/ST category. Since his claim was rejected, he moved the HC. <br /><br /></p>
<p>The Bombay High Court has asked Maharashtra Government to conduct a probe to find out how a case of issuing SC/ST certificate to an applicant was rejected by the relevant committee when its Chairman was absent during the hearing, in clear violation of rules.<br /><br />Acting on a petition, it also asked the State to probe allegations that a remark in pencil on the rejection letter to obtain the Chairman's signature was erased from the original document.</p>.<p>The Court felt this was a serious lapse as the hearing was conducted by only two officers of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p>.<p>It asked the State to look into the conduct of the panel's Chairman, Yevle Patil, who was not present during the proceedings on April 28, 2011.<br /><br />The HC asked the Government to inform what action it proposed to take against the officer concerned if there was a lapse on his part.<br /><br />According to rules, all the members, including Chairman, are required to be present during the hearing to issue caste certificates.<br /><br />The petitioner produced before the Court a copy of the rejection order which contained a note written with pencil that Patil's signature was to be obtained. However, the official document tabled before the court did not contain that note as it was apparently erased, a Bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar observed recently.<br /><br />The case pertained to one Amrutlal Kanjaraiya, who had got a job in Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) in reserved category. He had to produce a certificate from the Scrutiny Committee to show he belonged to SC/ST category. Since his claim was rejected, he moved the HC. <br /><br /></p>