Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4316 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2016

Bombay High Court
Shahoobai Baliram Narlawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 August, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
                                                                               WP.8160.16
      
                                                  -  1 -

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD               

                       




                                                       
                       WRIT PETITION NO.8160 OF 2016
                                                
                       Shahoobai D/o Baliram Narlawar
                       Age : 28 years, Occu : Service




                                                      
                       R/o Markhel, Tq. Degloor
                       District : Nanded.
                                          ...Petitioner..
                             Versus




                                              
                                        1   The State of Maharashtra,
                                   ig       Through, Secretary to Tribal 
                                            Development Department, 
                                            Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                                 
                                        2   The Chief Executive Officer,
                                            Zilla Parishad Nanded
                                            Dist. Nanded.
      

                                        3   The Block Development Officer,
                                            Panchayat Samiti Degloor
   



                                            Dist. Nanded.

                                        4
                           The Scheduled Tribe Caste
                           Certificate Verification
                           Committee Aurangabad,





                           Through its Dy. Director (R),
                           Aurangabad. 
                                         ...Respondents... 
                                                          
                              .....





    Shri.S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
    Shri.S.S. Dande, AGP for respondent no.1.
    Shri.S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for  respondent nos.2&3. 
                              .....
      
                                CORAM: R. M. Borde, &
                                       K. L. Wadane, JJ. 

DATE: 01.08.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:21:52 ::: WP.8160.16

- 2 -

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2] The petitioner claims to belong to Koli Mahadev -

scheduled tribe and is in receipt of the certificate issued by the competent authority certifying that she belongs to aforesaid reserved category.

3] The petitioner has been appointed as a Gram Sevak on contract basis by respondent no.2 as against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe category since 3.1.2012. As a result of failure of the petitioner to tender tribe validation certificate, her services have not been regularized and she has not been issued an order appointing her as a regular Gram Sevak in terms of Clause (6) of the appointment order issued on 3.1.2012. The claim for verification of the tribe certificate issued to the petitioner is stated to be pending since 2012 with the respondent no.4 - committee.

4] In the facts of this case, this petition can be disposed of with direction to the respondent no.4 -

::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:21:52 :::

WP.8160.16

- 3 -

committee to take decision on the tribe certificate verification proposal tendered by the petitioner pending with the committee as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today, and it is accordingly directed. In the meanwhile, subject to fulfillment of necessary requirements, the respondent no.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services as a Gram Sevak and the claim of the petitioner for regularization shall not be turned down merely on the ground of her failure to submit tribe validation certificate. It is stated by the petitioner that the tribe certificate issued to her is produced for verification to the scrutiny committee and as such it would be sufficient compliance if the petitioner tenders a certified / attested copy of the tribe certificate to the employer. The respondent nos.1 to 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. It would be needless to mention that monetary benefits, if any, accruable to the petitioner on issuance of the order of regularization, shall be paid to her expeditiously.

::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:21:52 :::

WP.8160.16

- 4 -

5] The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  (K. L. Wadane, J.)      (R. M. Borde, J.) 




                                       
                             
                                  
                                 
      
   






    ndk/c181615.doc




         ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:21:52 :::