Gurudas S/O Dhondba Dadmal vs Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 455 Bom

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent heard finally.

2. Smt. S. W. Deshpande, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri Charpe, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Shri Deshpande, learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the termination order dated 24-1-2002 issued by respondent No. 2.

4. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Driver vide order dated 5th May, 1990 in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to be belonging to 'Mana Tribe' which finds place at Entry No. 18 in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Order (Amended Act) 1976. Since the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the tribal claim of the petitioner came to be referred to respondent No. 1 Committee for verification. Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee though found that all the documents pertaining to the petitioner and his ancestors show the Tribe of the petitioner to be 'Mana', but since the petitioner failed to prove that he had affinity with 'Gond Tribe', rejected the tribal claim of the petitioner vide Order dated 29-10-2001. Consequent to the rejection of the tribal claim of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24-1-2002 terminated the services of the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 29-10-2001 and the Order of termination dated 24-1-2002 issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Mr. Parsodkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that for proving the tribal claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, it is sufficient that the candidate proves that he belongs to 'Mana Tribe'. He submits that 'Mana' independently has been recognised as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and it is not necessary to show the affinity to 'Gond'. He relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513.

7. Smt. S. W. Deshpande and Shri Charpe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 respectively submit that the judgment of this Court cited supra is challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court is seized with the matter. Smt. Deshpande and Shri Charpe, therefore, requests that this matter should be adjourned until the Apex Court decides the issue.

8. We have enquired from the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 as to whether the judgment of this Court is stayed by the Apex Court or not. It is brought to our notice that only the matter is admitted and no stay is granted.

9. In that view of the matter, we find that the judgment of this court in the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, cited supra holds the field. Once the person proves that he belongs to 'Mana Tribe', it is not necessary to prove that the said 'Mana' has an affinity with 'Gond Tribe'. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 29 10-2001 is not sustainable in law and, therefore, will have to be quashed and set aside. Since the termination of the petitioner is a consequence of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the termination order dated 24-1-2002 will also have to be quashed and set aside.

10. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 29-10-2001 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribal claim of the petitioner and the order dated 24-1-2002 issued by respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within 4 weeks from today with continuity in service.

Respondent No. 1 is further directed to issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs