Gokul Dharamsingh Padwal vs The Superintendent Of Police, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4312 Bom

    Judgment                                                                     wp3887.05

                                            1




                                                                             
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                     
                        WRIT PETITION  No. 3887  OF  2005
                     WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6754 OF 2005.




                                                    
                                         
          Gokul Dharamsingh Padwal,
          Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
                              
          resident of Ujwal Nagar, Post Palodi,
          Tah. Manora, District Washim.                           ....PETITIONER.
                             
                                        VERSUS
      


      1. The Superintendent of Police,
   



         Akola.

      2. The Committee for Scrutiny and
         Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati.





      3. The Superintendent of Police,
         Washim.                                                  ....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                 . 





                                ----------------------------------- 
                         Mr. N.R.  Saboo, Advocate for Petitioner.
                     Mr. Damle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
                                ------------------------------------




     ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2016 00:25:43 :::
     Judgment                                                                              wp3887.05

                                                   2


                                           CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &




                                                                                      
                                                         KUM. INDIRA JAIN , JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 01, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)

Considering the nature of controversy and with consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final

hearing.

2. Petitioner born on 10.05.1974, got Caste Certificate showing that

he belongs to "Naikada" Scheduled Tribe on 15.03.1990 i.e. when be was

minor. He completed his education and got employment with

Superintendent of Police at Akola as per orders dated 13.08.2001 i.e. before

coming into force of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,

De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of)

Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001).

3. Shri Saboo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this

background states that in view of the Full Bench judgment in case of Arun

Vishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others reported at

Judgment wp3887.05

(2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457), the petitioner is entitled to protection of

employment, as the respondent no.2 Committee has not found him guilty of

any fraud or manipulation.

4. Shri Damle, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents is

strongly opposing the grant of protection. He is relying upon the orders

passed by the Scrutiny Committee to urge that the language used by the

community of petitioner is "Mathura" and while obtaining validity, the

relatives of petitioner did not point out and suppressed this information. He

therefore, contends that this is a case in which the Scrutiny Committee has

found a fraud played.

5. Question is - Whether petitioner has played any fraud for

obtaining his caste certificate or then for procuring employment. The order

of Scrutiny Committee impugned before this Court and dated 06.06.2005

does not record any finding in this respect. The Vigilance Cell found that the

community was using Mathura language and reported accordingly. The

Vigilance Cell does not find any fault with the documents of petitioner or his

father. The Vigilance Cell also does not complain of any non-cooperation or

any suppression. If other relatives of petitioner have in past played some

mischief or fraud for obtaining validity, petitioner who got caste certificate

Judgment wp3887.05

when he was about 16 years old, cannot be blamed for it.

6. In this situation, we find him entitled to grant of protection as per

the Full Bench judgment (supra). Hence, subject to petitioner filing an

undertaking within a period of four weeks from today with the Registry of

this Court, his Employer as also with the Scrutiny Committee that neither he

nor his progeny shall in future claim any benefit of "Naikada" Scheduled

Tribe, his employment shall remain protected in terms of the Full Bench

Judgment (supra). Thus, though we maintain the order of invalidation

dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, if such an undertaking

is filed the said order cannot be used to disturb the employment of

petitioner.

7. Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Pending civil

application/s also stands disposed of. No costs.

                                 JUDGE                                     JUDGE


    Rgd.





     Judgment                                                                          wp3887.05






                                                                                  
                                          CERTIFICATE




                                                          

I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.

Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 02.08.2016