1 wp5472.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5472/2016
Santosh s/o Arjun Gonnade,
aged 44 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Plot No. 43, Ganesh Nagar,
Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Vice-Chairman and Joint
Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny committee,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. Secretary, Indira Education Society,
Piwali Nadi, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. N. Ekare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. A. A. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
OCTOBER 13, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for protection of his services in view of judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:20:51 ::: 2 wp5472.16.odt Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone..vs..State of Maharashtra and others; 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.
3. The petitioner claiming to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30.12.1999 against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. Since the petitioner was appointed against the Scheduled Tribe, his claim came to be referred to the respondent no.1-Committee for considering its validity. By the impugned order, the same is rejected on the ground that some of the documents of the forefathers of the petitioner shows the caste to be Koshti.
4 The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra ..vs..
Milind and ors; (2001) 1 SCC 4 taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances and facts of Halba-Koshti castes, had protected all such admissions and appointments prior to the date of the said judgment i.e. 28.11.2000. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed prior to the aforesaid judgment.
Apart from that, Full Bench of this Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone (supra) also held that all such persons who are appointed against the reserved post and against whom no finding of ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:20:51 ::: 3 wp5472.16.odt fraud is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, are entitled to protection of their services.
Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there is no adverse report against the petitioner in his service record.
5. In that view of the matter, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition. No order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. R. Gavai, J.)
kahale
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:20:51 :::