Bombay High Court
Sanjay Ambadas Tandale vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.489.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 489/2016
Sanjay Ambadas Tandale
Aged 47 years, occu: service
R/o Mahadeonagar, Akoli Road,
Amravati. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
Department of Education
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Secretary,
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Soceity
Office at 'Chaitanya' Building 36,
Ganediwal layout, Camp Amravati.
3) The headmaster,
Seciondaryu School, Dhamak
Dist.Amravati.
4) The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Through its Chairmabn. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.S.D.Harode, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.M. Balpande, Asst. Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 4
Mr. R.D.Bhibhar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 5th August, 2016
wp.489.16
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, 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 seeks a direction against the
Respondent no. 2 & 3 to protect his service as a Peon, in view of the judgment of
the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457: Arun Sonone vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, and protect his services.
3.
The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 16.2.1996. The services
of the petitioner were confirmed on 20.2.1998. The petitioner claims to belong to
'Tirumal' Nomadic Tribe (B). The petitioner has challenged the notice dated
22.5.2014 by filing the Petition, being Writ Petition No. 2561/2014. This Court after
hearing of the parties, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of
the petitioner within one year. The services of the petitioner were directed to be
protected till the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, by the order dated 21.1.2015.
The Scrutiny Committee, however, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner vide
order dated 17.11.2015. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench (supra), the
petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 & 3
that his services be protected.
4. Shri S.D. Harode, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is entitled to protection of his services, in view of the law laid down by
the Full Bench, in the judgment reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is stated that
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking protection stand
satisfied in the case of the petitioner inasmuch, as the petitioner was appointed
wp.489.16
before the cut off date on 16.02.1996 and there is no observation in the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant
for the 'Tirumal' Nomadic Tribe (B). It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner
was not validated as he was not able to prove the same on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
services of the petitioner are required to be protected like all other employees whose
services are protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench. Both the
conditions that are required to be satisfied, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench
for seeking protection, stand fulfilled in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as, the
petitioner was appointed before the cut off date and there is no observation in the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the 'Tirumal' N.T.(B).
6. We find that the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected by the
Scrutiny Committee as the petitioner was not able to prove the same on the basis of
the documents and affinity test. There are no adverse observations against the
petitioner, whatsoever in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the protection
to the services of the petitioner cannot be denied when all other similarly situated
employees are reinstated in service by granting the benefit of the Full Bench decision.
After the Full Bench judgment was rendered, employees who had worked for a
considerable long period and whose services were terminated, approached this Court
seeking protection of their services and consistently, during the recent past, this
Court has protected the services of the employees.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent nos. 2 & 3
wp.489.16
are directed to protect the services of the petitioner, on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking that neither the petitioner nor his progeny
would claim the benefits meant for the 'Tirumal' Nomadic Tribe (B), in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.489.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 10.08.2016.
