1906WP3990.13-Judgment 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3990 OF 2013
PETITIONERS :- 1] Irfan Ahmad Saeed Ahmad, Aged 38 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. Chhota Mominpura
Balapur, District Akola.
2] Sayyad Majhar Sayyad Jafar, Aged 40 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o Baluchpura, Balapur, Tah.
Balapur, District - Akola.
3] Mohd. Karmatulla Mohd. Tamijulla, Aged 36
yrs., Occ. Teacher, R/o. Taj Nagar, Balapur,
Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
4] Eqbal Husain Mohd. Husain, Aged 40 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. C/o Sayyadpura Balapur,
Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
5] Javed Ahmad Sheikh Bhuru, Aged 30 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o Vazirabad Balapur, Tah.
Balapur, District-Akola.
6] Ku.Naema Khatun Mohd. Matin, Aged 36
yrs., Occ. Teacher, r/o. C/o. Nagar
Jumichudi, Balapur, Tah. Balapur, District-
Akola.
7] Sheikh Yaseen Sheikh Baba, Aged 36 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. C/o. Sayyad Pura,
Balapur, Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] Zilla Parishad, Akola, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Akola.
2] Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 :::
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 2/8
3] Municipal Council, Balapur, through its
Chief Officer, Distt. Akola.
4] Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.C.Madkholkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. G.G.Mishra and Mrs.Indira L. Bodade,
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent No.3.
Mr. I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 19.06.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the communication of the respondent No.3-Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Balapur, District Akola dated 03/07/2013 asking the petitioners to produce the documents pertaining to their caste claim for verification or else their services would be terminated in view of the government decision dated 18/05/2013. The petitioners have also challenged the government decision dated 18/05/2013. ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 :::
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 3/8
2. According to the petitioners, they were appointed on the posts of shikshan sevaks that were meant for the open category. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.3-municipal council wrongly presumed that the petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the reserved category and illegally asked the petitioners to produce the caste validity certificate or the documents pertaining to their caste claim for verification. The petitioners claimed that their appointments were made in the open category and therefore the municipal council could not have sought the documents pertaining to their caste claim. The petitioners have also challenged the government circular dated 18/05/2013 providing that the responsibility to prove that the employees appointed from the reserved category belong to the same category, would be of the employees and if they are not able to submit the application for verification of their caste claim along with the relevant documents for proving the same to the scrutiny committee, a notice should be served on them asking them to produce the relevant documents for verification of their caste claim or else their services would be terminated. It is the case of the petitioners that since the petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the open category, the municipal council could not have asked the petitioners to produce the documents in respect of their caste claim.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 :::
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 4/8
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the open category and were not appointed on the posts earmarked for the reserved category. It is submitted that it was therefore not necessary for the petitioners to either produce the caste validity certificate or to tender the documents for the verification of their caste claim. It is submitted that the government circular dated 18/05/2013 is bad-in-law, inasmuch as it permits the employer to take action against the employees for their termination if they fail to produce the requisite documents for verification of their caste claim. It is submitted that the policy of the State Government in this regard is arbitrary and the government circular is liable to be set aside. It is stated that since the petitioners were appointed in the open category, they had not submitted the relevant documents but if this court finds that they are appointed on the posts meant for the reserved category, this court may permit the petitioners to submit the relevant documents within a reasonable time and direct the respondent No.3-municipal council to refer the caste claim of the petitioners to the scrutiny committee for verification.
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the scrutiny committee, states that as per the new policy, it would be necessary for the petitioners to tender their application for ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 ::: 1906WP3990.13-Judgment 5/8 verification of their caste claim on-line in the proper format along with the documents. It is stated that if such an application is made, the scrutiny committee would verify the caste claim of the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, has denied the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed on the posts meant for the open category. It is submitted that the municipal council has informed the zilla parishad after the appointment of the petitioners that they are appointed on the posts meant for the reserved category. It is submitted that the names of the petitioners were also recommended for their appointment in the reserved category.
6. Though the respondent No.3 is not represented by a counsel, it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed in vimukta jatis (A) category and the appointments of the petitioner Nos.3 to 7 were made against the posts reserved for the scheduled tribes. Certain documents are annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 to substantiate the said submission.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 ::: 1906WP3990.13-Judgment 6/8 and the documents annexed thereto, it appears that there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the open category. Though the petitioners were appointed on the posts of shikshan sevaks, the petitioners have not annexed their appointment orders to the writ petition. Had the appointment orders been annexed, this court would have noticed at the outset that the petitioners were not appointed on the posts meant for the open category. The documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, clearly show that the appointment of the petitioners was made on the posts earmarked for the scheduled tribes and the vimukta jatis. The respondent No.3 was justified in asking the petitioners to tender the relevant documents pertaining to their caste claim so that their caste claim could be verified. Instead of producing the documents, the petitioners challenged the communication asking the petitioners to do so. The petitioners ought to have tendered the documents in support of their caste claim as they were appointed on the posts meant for the reserved category.
8. We find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the government circular dated 18/05/2013 is bad-in- law. The said submission is not substantiated. In any case, we do not ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 ::: 1906WP3990.13-Judgment 7/8 find as to how the government circular that permits the employer to take the action of termination of services of the employee who refuses to tender the documents for verification of his / her caste claim, though he or she is appointed on the post earmarked for the reserved category, is bad-in-law.
9. Be that as it may, since the petitioners are now ready to get their caste claim verified from the competent scrutiny committee, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to permit the petitioners to submit the applications to the scrutiny committee (on-line) within 45 days. It would be necessary to direct the scrutiny committee to decide the applications, if submitted by the petitioners, within 15 months from the receipt thereof. Since the petitioners are working since long, it would be necessary to protect the services of the petitioners till their caste claim is decided.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioners are hereby directed, in view of their request to submit their caste claim to the scrutiny committee (on-line) for verification within 45 days. If the application is so made, the respondent No.4-scrutiny committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioners within 15 months from the date of receipt of the ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 ::: 1906WP3990.13-Judgment 8/8 same. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate action against the petitioners, if they fail to submit the caste claim to the scrutiny committee within the stipulated period. The services of the petitioners are protected till their caste claim is decided. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 :::