Bombay High Court
Rajkumar S/O Nilkanth Ninawe vs Maharashtra State Rod Transport ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 2804WP2347.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2347 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Rajkumar S/o Nilkanth Ninawe, Aged about
46 yrs., Occ. Service, R/o Shahid Ward,
Bhandara, Tah.& Distt. Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC), through Divisional
ig Controller, Bhandara.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur, Through its Vice
Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.G.Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.G.Wankhede, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.A.K.Bangadkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 28.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (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.
2/4 2804WP2347.16-Judgment
2. By this 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 Sonone v. State of Maharashtra).
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor by
the respondent No.1-Corporation on 06/03/1998. Since the post was
earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes and the petitioner had claimed to
belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe, the caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The caste claim of
the petitioner was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on
31/03/2016. Since the petitioner is still in service and since both the
conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking protection of
his services, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in
2015 (1) Mh.L.J., 457, are claimed to have been satisfied in the case of
the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the
aforesaid relief.
4. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date on
06/03/1998 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of
the petitioner was invalidated, as the petitioner could not prove the
3/4 2804WP2347.16-Judgment
same on the basis of the documents and affinity test. It is stated that
the direction to the respondent-Corporation to protect the services of
the petitioner would be necessary.
5. Shri A.K.Bangadkar, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee and Shri V. G. Wankhede,
the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, 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
documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner was
appointed as a Conductor in the year 1998 and there is no observation
in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe.
It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the
circumstances of the case.
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, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J., 457, it appears that the
services of the petitioner are required to be protected. Admittedly, the
petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date and there is no adverse
observation in regard to the commission of fraud by the petitioner while
seeking the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. As rightly
4/4 2804WP2347.16-Judgment
stated on behalf of the petitioner, the caste claim appears to have been
invalidated, as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of
the documents and the affinity test.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the post of Conductor on the condition that the
petitioner submits an undertaking in this Court and before the
respondent-Corporation within a period of four weeks that neither the
petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for the Halba
Scheduled Tribe, in future. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
