whose caste claim admittedly was pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee immediately prior to his appointment, the petitioner would have been anxious to know the outcome of the proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee particularly when the petitioner had received an appointment order dated 28.5.2012. We find it improbable to hold that for six months thereafter, i.e., till December of that year, the petitioner was unaware of the invalidation of his caste claim. A perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation would show that the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee by communication dated 4.12.2012 (received by the Corporation on 17.12.2012) had intimated about the invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner. Thus, in all probability, the petitioner on learning about the communication being sent by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee on 4.12.2012, sent a letter on 5.12.2012 to the Corporation about invalidation of his caste claim, in order to create an impression that he had of his own accord chosen to intimate the decision of the caste scrutiny committee to the Corporation. In the given circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the explanation as submitted and we find that in all probability, the petitioner was having knowledge about invalidation of his caste claim at the time he joined the service of the Corporation. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal passed on 10.4.2014. In the
