Bombay High Court
Ku. Archana D/O. Vishwanath ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 792/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 792/2016
Ku.Archana D/o Vishwanath Barley/
Archana W/o Ajay Naidu,
Age-40, Occu-Nil,
R/o- Chandak Lay out, Chikhali Road,
Buldhana, Tq-Dist- Buldhana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
Ta.,Dist- Buldhana.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee Division, Amravati.
Through its Chairman. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.V. Bute, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Vaishali Khadekar, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 13 TH APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service and protect her
services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015(1)
Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra &
Others).
WP 792/16 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the
respondent no.1, on 30.06.1995, 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. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste
claim of the petitioner by the order dated 11.03.1998. The Zilla Parishad
terminated the services of the petitioner on 30.12.2004, after securing the
knowledge about the invalidation of the caste claim. In view of the
judgment of the Full Bench, the petitioner has sought her reinstatement
in service as she has given up her claim of belonging to Mannewar
Scheduled Tribe.
4. Shri Bute, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the case of the petitioner stands fully covered by the
judgment of the Full Bench, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed
before the cut-off date, in the year 1995, 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. It is stated that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied
while seeking protection, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner. It is
stated that the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected as the petitioner
could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity
test.
WP 792/16 3 Judgment
5. Ms Khadekar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1
and Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent no.2, do not dispute the position of law as laid down by
the judgment of the Full Bench. It is not disputed by the learned counsel
for the respondent no.1 that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-
off date and that 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. It is, however, stated on
behalf of the respondent no.1 that if this Court is desirous of reinstating
the petitioner in service, the petitioner should not be granted the arrears
of salary and/or any other benefits flowing from the order of
reinstatement and continuity of service.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 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 required to be
protected. The petitioner has given up her caste claim. The petitioner
was appointed before the 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 Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. It appears
that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as she was unable to
prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test. It is,
however, rightly stated on behalf of the Zilla Parishad that the petitioner
WP 792/16 4 Judgment
should not be granted arrears of salary or any other benefits flowing from
the order of the reinstatement and continuity of service, in the
circumstances of the case.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent no.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on
the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this Court and
to the Zilla Parishad that neither the petitioner nor her progeny would
seek the benefits meant for the Mannewar Scheduled Tribe, in future.
The respondent no.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the
undertaking. Though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement
and continuity of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the
arrears of salary or any other benefits flowing from the order of
reinstatement and continuity of service.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
