Bombay High Court
Ambadas Vishramji Charthad, Head ... vs The Deputy Director Of Education, ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2164/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2164/2016
Ambadas Vishramji Charthad,
aged about 58 years, Occ. Head Master,
Janta High School, Purnanagar,
Tq. Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati,
R/o Amravati. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Shivaji Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Shivaji Nagar, Amravati. RESPONDENTS
Shri C.B. Dharmadhikari holding for Shri A.J. Gilda, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (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. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication of the respondent no.2-Shivaji Education Society,
dated 22.03.2016 reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher
for not producing the caste validity certificate of belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes.
WP 2164/16 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior College Teacher in
Shivaji High School, Gharfal, on 31.08.1987, on a post earmarked for the
Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claimed to belong to Dhanwar
Scheduled Tribe. At the relevant time when the petitioner was appointed,
caste 'Dhanwar' was included in the Scheduled Tribes. However,
subsequently, by the Government Resolution dated 14.02.2001, caste
'Dhanwar' was included in the list of Nomadic Tribe-C category. The
petitioner's caste claim was validated by the Scrutiny Committee and the
Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner belongs to Nomadic Tribe-C
category, as at the relevant time when the caste claim was decided in the
year 2010 as per the Government Resolution dated 14.02.2001,
'Dhanwar' caste was included in the Nomadic Tribe-C category.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the action on the part of the respondent no.2 in
reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher-Junior College
Lecturer is bad in law, as when the petitioner was appointed in the
year 1987, on his claim of belonging to 'Dhanwar' caste, 'Dhanwar' caste
was included in the Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that 'Dhanwar' caste
was earlier a Scheduled Tribe and only after the Government Resolution
was issued on 14.02.2001, the said caste was included in Nomadic
Tribe-C category. It is stated that since the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided after the Government Resolution of the year 2001 was issued,
WP 2164/16 3 Judgment
the Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner belongs to
Dhanwar caste that is included in Nomadic Tribe-C category. It is
stated that it is not the fault of the petitioner that 'Dhanwar' caste that
was a Scheduled Tribe earlier, is now included in the list of Nomadic
Tribe-C category. It is stated that in similar set of facts, this Court has, by
the judgment dated 03.12.2014, allowed Writ Petition No.4756 of 2014
and quashed the order of the college, intending to cancel the admission of
the student-petitioner therein. It is stated that the issue involved in this
case stands fully covered in favour of the petitioner, by the judgment
dated 03.12.2014.
5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, does
not dispute that 'Dhanwar' caste was earlier included in the Scheduled
Tribes and in view of the Government Resolution of the year 2001, the
same is included in Nomadic Tribe-C category. It is, however, stated that
since the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the Scheduled
Tribes and the petitioner has produced a caste validity certificate of
belonging to Nomadic Tribe-C category, the management has rightly
reverted the petitioner. It is stated that since the petitioner had himself
volunteered to get himself reverted in view of the issuance of the caste
validity certificate validating the claim of the petitioner to the Nomadic
Tribes-C category, the impugned order cannot be assailed.
WP 2164/16 4 Judgment
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the respondent no.2 was not justified in reverting the petitioner to the
post of Assistant Teacher-cum-Junior College Lecturer. The petitioner
had rightly secured the appointment on the post of Junior College
Lecturer that was earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes when he was
appointed in the year 1987. In the year 1987, 'Dhanwar' caste was
included in the Scheduled Tribes and only after 2001, the same was
included in the Nomadic Tribes-C category. Merely because the caste
claim of the petitioner was validated after the Government Resolution
was issued in the year 2001, it cannot be said that the appointment was
wrongfully secured by the petitioner on a post that was earmarked for the
Scheduled Tribes. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner in
securing the employment on a post that was meant for the Scheduled
Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner belongs to
'Dhanwar' caste and if that be so, the petitioner's promotion could not
have been disturbed only because the Scrutiny Committee has held that
the petitioner belongs to the Nomadic Tribes-C category. The submission
made on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner has himself
tendered an application that he could be reverted on the post of Assistant
Teacher and, therefore, no relief should be granted to him, is liable to be
rejected. We find that there is total non-application mind on the part of
the respondent no.2 while passing the order of reversion against the
petitioner.
WP 2164/16 5 Judgment
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that
the petitioner would be entitled to all service benefits by considering his
appointment to be valid.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 2164/16 6 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 09.08.2016.
