Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4421 Bom

                                         {1}
                                                                      wp 5882.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                            
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5882 OF 2016




                                                    
     Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar,
     age: 35 years, occu: Selectee
     R/o Krushnur, Tq. Naigaon,




                                                   
     Dist. Nanded                                                        Petitioner


              Versus




                                      
     1        Scheduled Tribe Certificate
              Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
                             
              Through Its Member Secretary

     2        Maharashtra Industrial Development
              Corporation, Mumbai
                            
              Head Office, Udyog Sarthi,
              Mahakali Gupha Road,
              Andheri (East), Mumbai 93
              through Its Administrative Officer                     Respondents

Mr. S.S. Phatale advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Dande Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents

_______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

K.L. WADANE, JJ

(Date : 3rd August, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

{2} wp 5882.16.odt

3 The petitioner claims to belong to Mannerwarlu, Scheduled

Tribe and is in receipt of certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional

Officer certifying accordingly. The petitioner has been selected for

appointment to the post of a driver in MIDC, as against a seat

reserved for ST category in the year 2015. However, since the

petitioner is not in a position to tender validation certificate, on

account of pendency of the proposal with the scrutiny committee,

the employer has not issued appointment order. One of the

conditions contained in the order of selection mandates a selected

candidate to submit validation certificate within a period of eight

days. On production of such certificate, the employer has assured

to issue appointment order.

4 Imposition of such precondition is violative of the Policy of

the Government recorded in the resolution dated 12.12.2011. The

petitioner ought to have been issued the letter of appointment by

the respondent employer appointing him, subject to production of

the validation certificate.

5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition

stands disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 scrutiny

committee to take decision on the caste validation proposal of the

petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

{3} wp 5882.16.odt

period of one year from today. Respondent No.2 employer shall

issue provisional appointment order for the post, for which the

petitioner is selected, subject to decision in respect of tribe

certificate validation proposal pending with respondent No.1

committee. In the event of failure of the petitioner to

substantiate his claim before respondent No.1 committee, it would

be open for the employer to withdraw the appointment. The

employer shall issue letter of appointment as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

     6        Rule is made absolute accordingly.


     7        No costs.
      
   



                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                  (R.M.BORDE, J)





     vbd