through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare
Department, Sachivalaya, New Raipur.
4. Vigilance Cell constituted by the Caste Certificate High
Level/Powered Scrutiny Committee through Senior Deputy ... vigilance
report has been explicit because the respondent No.1 was not at
all examined or given any opportunity before the Vigilance Cell
Page
2014
Respondent No.2 - The Committee conducted home enquiry through its
vigilance cell. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the vigilance cell ... Respondent No.2 - The Committee that the report of vigilance cell is in her
favour. However, upon hearing the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 - The
Committee
Sutar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the Vigilance Cell Report which is
1/5
14-WP11414-19.doc
produced at Exhibit ... that
in the objection filed by the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell Report if is
not considered that the Vigilance Cell Report
academic year 2011-2012 under reserved category of
Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, Vigilance Cell conducted home and school
enquiry in the case of the petitioner ... report to
Respondent No. 2-Committee. During the course of Vigilance Cell
enquiry, the Vigilance Cell officer recorded statement in regard to the
traits, characteristics
matter of the caste
claim of the Petitioner to the Vigilance Cell for verification and after
thorough inquiry and considering the documentary evidence produced
before ... Vigilance Cell, the Vigilance Cell submitted its detailed report to
the Respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee on 12.06.2013 by which
the Vigilance Officer recommended
Ramachandran vs The Registrar (Vigilance Cell) on 10 November, 2020
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar , C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)No.19768 ... 19768 of 2017
V.Ramachandran : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar (Vigilance Cell),
High Court, Chennai – 104.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Theni. : Respondents
Prayer: Writ
Ramachandran vs The Registrar (Vigilance Cell) on 10 March, 2020
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar , C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)No.19768 ... 19768 of 2017
V.Ramachandran : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar (Vigilance Cell),
High Court, Chennai – 104.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Theni. : Respondents
Prayer: Writ
various documents. Respondent No.4 thereafter
forwarded the said documents to vigilance cell for inquiry. Accordingly the
vigilance cell conducted inquiry and submitted its report ... application of mind and contrary to the report of the vigilance cell.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is nothing
that, the Scrutiny Committee
laid undue emphasis on area restrictions. The vigilance cell,
during the enquiry, collected school record of one
Chandrakant Dattatraya Suryawanshi, wherein ... petitioner. His school record ought to have been obtained by
the vigilance cell. The Scrutiny Committee did not place
reliance on the school record
Caste Scrutiny
Committee forwarded the application along with documents to the Vigilance
Cell in terms of Rule of 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes ... necessary inquiry. On the basis of the information so collected,
the Vigilance Cell Officer submitted his report inter alia reporting that the
petitioner failed
