1204WP2021.2000-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 OF 2000
PETITIONER :- Vinayak Digambar Ankurkar, aged about 35
years, occupation-Driver, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, permanent
resident of Khilori, Tahsil Daryapur, District-
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Bombay-32.
2. The Chairman, Committee for Scrutiny &
Verification of Tribes Claims, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
3. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra, State
Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur
Division, Kolhapur.
4. Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation, Chandgad, district-
Kolhapur.
5. The Executive Magistrate, Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sumit G. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.R.Taiwade, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
None for the respondent Nos3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 12.04.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:20 ::: 1204WP2021.2000-Judgment 2/4 R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 22/03/2000 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. The petitioner has given up the prayer challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee and has only sought the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others). In view of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to amend the writ petition accordingly. The amendment should be carried out forthwith.
2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as a driver in 1996 on a post earmarked for the scheduled tribes. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner by the order dated 22/03/2000. The petitioner has given up his challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and has only sought the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
3. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:20 ::: 1204WP2021.2000-Judgment 3/4 the protection of services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the M.S.R.T.C. before the cut-off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner is rejected only because the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
4. Mrs. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full Bench of this court. It is fairly stated that it does not appear from the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. It is submitted that in some of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, caste Koli was recorded in the caste column and hence, the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
5. On a reading of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the judgment of the Full Bench, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the protection of services. The petitioner was appointed before the ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:20 ::: 1204WP2021.2000-Judgment 4/4 cut-off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. As rightly submitted on behalf of the parties, we find that the caste claim of the petitioner is rejected as in some of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, caste Koli was recorded in the caste column instead of 'Koli Mahadeo'. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be entitled to the protection of his services as a driver, with the respondent-M.S.R.T.C.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-M.S.R.T.C. is directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of driver, on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this court and to the respondent- M.S.R.T.C. within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe, in future. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:20 :::