Bombay High Court
Shri. Prashant S/O Gangaiyya ... vs Joint Commissioner And Vice ... on 6 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1355.16-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1355 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shri Prashant S/o Gangaiyya Gattu
Aged about 42 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Plot No.594, Pradhan Layout,
Bezonbag Model Town, Near Lal
Primary School, Nagpur-440 014.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Joint Commissioner & Vice-
ig Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2) Chief General Manager
(Technical Establishment Department)
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.,
Prakashgad, 4th Floor, Station
Road, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051.
3) Chief Engineer,
MSEDC Ltd.,
Nagpur Urban Zone,
'Prakash Bhavan' Link Road,
Sadar, Nagpur-440 001.
4) Deputy Executive Engineer (O&M)
Sub-Division, Prakash Nagar,
Generation Colony, Near Dena
Bank, MSEDCL, Khaparkheda,
District Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.R. Narnaware, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.D. Mohgaonkar, counsel for respondent Nos.2
to 4.
Mrs.Geeta Tiwari, AGP for the respondent No.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:12:22 :::
wp1355.16-Judgment 2/4
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 6, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of
his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in
2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors).
The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Engineer on
14.1.1999 on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The
petitioner claimed to belong to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe and the
caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification. By the order dated 6.6.2015, the Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has not
challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee. By giving up his claim
of belonging to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner has only
sought the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Full
Bench.
wp1355.16-Judgment 3/4
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that both the
conditions, that are required to be satisfied in view of the judgment of
this Full Bench while seeking protection of services, stand satisfied in
the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed in
the year 1999, that is 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 "Mannewar" Scheduled
Tribe.
Mrs. Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent No.1 and Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 do not dispute the position of law
as laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench. It is also not disputed
by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the petitioner
was appointed before the cut-off date. It is fairly stated that there is no
observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner
has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the "Mannewar"
Scheduled Tribe.
On a perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and
the judgment of the Full Bench, it appears that the services of the
petitioner are liable to be protected. The petitioner was admittedly
appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1999 and there is no
wp1355.16-Judgment 4/4
observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner
had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the "Mannewar"
Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the caste claim of the petitioner was
invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of
the documents and affinity test. As rightly stated on behalf of the
petitioner, both the conditions that are required to be satisfied, while
seeking the protection of services, stand satisfied in the case of the
petitioner.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner submits an
undertaking in this Court and before the respondent Nos.2 to 4 within a
period of 4 weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would
seek the benefits meant for the "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! RBW !!
