Bombay High Court
Dhananjay S/O Bhalchadnra Bobde, ... vs State Of Maharsahtra Thr ... on 3 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2221.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2221/2016
PETITIONER: Dhananjay s/o Bhalchandra Bobde,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Service Asstt.
Livestock Development Officer, Panchayat
Samiti, Chandur Rly., Resident of Rajapeth,
Nanda Market, Amravati - 444606.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary
Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Amravati.
3. District Animal Husbandry Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for petitioner
Ms R.V. Kaliya, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 03.08.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent nos.2 and 3 to protect the services of the petitioner on the
wp2221.16.odt
post of Livestock Supervisor, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Livestock
Supervisor by the Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 10.5.1990, on a post
earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis. The petitioner had claimed to belong to
'Rajput Bhamta' Vimukta Jati and the caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny
Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order
dated 1.4.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the
Scrutiny Committee and is only seeking the protection of his services by
giving up his caste claim.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1990 and
there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had manipulated the documents and/or had fabricated the
same with a view to secure the benefits meant for the 'Rajput Bhamta'
Vimukta Jati. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner is
invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the
documents and the affinity test. It is stated that since both the conditions,
that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of services,
stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the respondent nos.2 to 3 may
wp2221.16.odt
be directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of
Livestock Supervisor.
Ms Kaliya, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 4 and the learned Counsel for the
respondent nos.2 and 3 do not dispute that the petitioner was appointed
before the cut off date. It is, however, stated on behalf of the respondents
that there are some observations in the order of the Scrutiny Committee
that the inward numbers of some of the documents tendered by the
petitioner do not tally with the originals. It is stated that an appropriate
order may be passed, in the circumstances of the case.
We had called for the original record and proceedings to
consider whether the petitioner had, by any chance, played fraud while
securing the benefits meant for the 'Rajput Bhamta' Vimukta Jati. We have
perused the documents placed by the petitioner before the Scrutiny
Committee and the remarks of the Vigilance Cell. We find that earlier in
some of the caste columns in the documents pertaining to the petitioner,
the caste was recorded as Gujar, subsequently, officially, through the
authorities, that are empowered to effect the change in the entries in the
school admission registers, entry 'Gujar' is changed to entry "Rajput
Bhamta". When the entry is changed by taking recourse to the procedure
prescribed by law, it cannot be said that the petitioner had fraudulently
wp2221.16.odt
secured the benefits meant for the 'Rajput Bhamta' Vimukta Jati. We find
that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated mainly because the
petitioner was not able to prove the same on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test. Since we do not find that the petitioner had played
fraud while seeking the benefits meant for the 'Rajput Bhamta' Vimukta
Jati, we are inclined to grant protection to the services of the petitioner as
he was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1990. Since the
petitioner has given up his caste claim, we intend to protect the services
of the petitioner.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the post of Livestock Supervisor on the condition that
the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the
respondent nos.2 and 3 within a period of four weeks that neither the
petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for the 'Rajput
Bhamta' Vimukta Jati, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp2221.16.odt
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 : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 05/08/2016
