Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shatrughna Rambhau Zalte vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1846 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1846 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2016

Bombay High Court
Shatrughna Rambhau Zalte vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                               1



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                   
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                           
    Writ Petition No. 2160 of 2016




                                                          
    Petitioner               :      Shatreughna Rambhau Zalte, aged about

                                    44 years, Occupation : nil, resident of 




                                              
                                    Patonda, Tahsil Nandura, Dist. Buldana
                                  igversus

    Respondents              :      1)  Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Buldhana

2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati,

through its Chairman

Shri M. V. Bute, Advocate for petitioner

Shri S. M. Ukey, Advocate for respondent no. 1

Shri A. K. Bangadkar, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent no. 2

Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And

V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 26th April 2016

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondent-Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service and protect his

services in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Arun

v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.

The petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher on 30 th

June 1995 in a school run by the respondent no. 1-Zilla Parishad, on a post

reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to belong to Koli

Mahadeo, 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 on 17 th March 1998. Since the

respondent-Zilla Parishad was not aware of the order of invalidation, the

services of the petitioner were terminated on 10 th July 2008 after the Zilla

Parishad became aware of the said order. In view of the judgment of the

Full Bench (supra), the petitioner has sought for his reinstatement in service.

Shri Bute, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking

protection of service in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench stand

satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner are

required to be protected. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed

before the cut-off date i.e. on 30.6.1995 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. It is stated that the

caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated as the petitioner could not prove

the same on the basis of documents and affinity test. It is submitted that the

order of termination may be quashed in the circumstances of the case and a

direction may be issued to the respondent-Zilla Parishad to reinstate the

petitioner in service.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Zilla Parishad and

the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent no.

2-Committee do not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full

Bench in the judgment reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457. It is stated that it

appears from the appointment order that the petitioner was appointed on

30.6.1995 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny

Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefit meant for

the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted on behalf of the

respondent- Zilla Parishad that if the petitioner is reinstated in service, this

Court may reject the prayer of the petitioner for arrears of salary and/or

consequential benefits flowing from the order of continuity in service.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the Full Bench judgment and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it

appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The

petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date on 30.6.1995 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 petitioner, 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. Since the petitioner has worked

with the respondent-Zilla Parishad for more than thirteen years, it would be

necessary to direct the Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order of termination is quashed and set aside. The respondent-

Zilla Parishad is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as an Assistant

Teacher on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this

Court and to the respondent no. 1-Zilla Parishad within a period of four

weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits

meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent-

Zilla Parishad is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of the undertaking. Though the petitioner

would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service, the

petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary and/or any other

monetory benefits for the period during which he was out of service.

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

costs.

              V. M. DESHPANDE, J                     SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J




                                          
    joshi
                              
                             
      
   







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter