D.G. Karnik, J.@mdashRule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. The respondent No. 4 was issued notice before admission which has been served. In the facts and circumstances of the case, service of Rule on respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.
2. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith.
3. The petitioner claims to belong to a caste ''Pardeshi'', which is notified as Other Backward Class. After having obtained a caste certificate, he applied to the respondent/Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee, which consisted of a Chairman and two Members, considered and decided the claim of the petitioner. The decision of the Committee was not unanimous. The Chairman of the Committee was of the view that the petitioner had not proved that he belongs to ''Pardeshi'' caste and invalidated his caste claim. The two Members of the Committee, however, wrote a separate order holding that the petitioner belongs to ''Pardeshi'' caste and validated his caste claim. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the decision of the majority, having upheld the caste claim of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee has not issued him the caste validity certificate in view of the dissent of the Chairman.
4. Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tahniyat Naazneen Mohd. Muniruddin Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others (Writ Petition No. 3738 of 2011), decided on 8th September 2011 (Coram : B.R. Gavai & M.T. Joshi, JJ.). Interpreting Rule 9, and in particular Sub-Rule 3 thereof, this Court held that the majority of decision of the Committee would be view of the Committee. This Court has further held that even if the Chairman of the Committee has taken a dissenting view, the majority view taken by two other Members of the Committee would prevail over the view of the Chairman. We respectfully agree and follow the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Tahniyat Naazneen Mohd. Muniruddin (supra).
5. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3401 of 2009, decided on 29th June 2010 (Coram : Naresh H. Patil & K.K. Tated, JJ.), wherein another Division Bench has also taken the same view.
6. For these reasons, the petition succeeds. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
