Bombay High Court
Rajendra A. Pawar vs Dy.Director Of Education on 1 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp616.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2005
Rajendra s/o Awadhtrao Pawar,
aged about 38 years, occupation
Service, r/o Govind Nagar,
Pimpalgaon Road, Yavatmal,
District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Deputy Director of Education,
Vocational Education & Training,
Regional Office, Amravati Region,
Amravati.
2. The Committee for Scrutiny &
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
AUGUST 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Lonare, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to
Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, has been invalidated by Respondent
wp616.05
No. 2 - Committee on 24.12.2004.
3. Shri Saboo, learned counsel submits that all old
documents record caste as Thakur only. The Scrutiny
Committee has applied affinity test and the claim is invalidated.
He, upon instructions, states that the petitioner will be satisfied
if his employment is protected.
4. The learned AGP is opposing the petition. He
contends that the validity has been rightly denied as the
petitioner failed to meet affinity test.
5. In present writ petition, the question for
consideration is, whether to grant protection to the petitioner
by following Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2015 (1)
Mh.L.J. 457 (FB). The petitioner is born on 27.12.1965 and the
caste certificate issued to him is dated 25.10.1977. Thus, at that
juncture, he was hardly 12 years old. He has completed his
education on the strength of that certificate and joined employment
on 23.11.1989.
wp616.05
6. A perusal of order of the Scrutiny Committee does not
show any finding of suppression or of any fraud by the petitioner for
procuring the caste certificate or then for obtaining employment. All
old documents mention caste as Thakur only. After using affinity
test, the Scrutiny Committee found that caste recorded is upper
caste and not Scheduled Tribe.
7.
In this situation, we find the petitioner entitled to grant
of protection. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner filing an
undertaking within a period of six weeks from today with this Court,
Scrutiny Committee and his employer that neither he nor his
progeny shall claim status or benefit as Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, his
employment shall remain protected.
8. Subject to this, writ petition is disposed of. Rule
accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
wp616.05
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : G. Shamdasani
Uploaded on : 03.08.2016.
