Bombay High Court
Ku. Archana Motilal Naukariya vs The Municipal Corporation Nagpur ... on 20 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2488.05 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2488 OF 2005
Ku. Archana d/o Motilal Naukariya,
Aged about..... years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Koradi, District-Nagpur. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] The Municipal Corporation, Nagpur
Through its Commissioner.
2] The Committee for Scrutiny &
Verification for Tribe Claims,
Nagpur. .. Respondents
..........
Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent no.2,
None for respondent no.1.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.)
Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no.2. None for respondent no.1.
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we have perused the
case papers.
Respondent no.2 - Committee has, by the impugned order
dated 2.4.2005, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as
belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. That order is stayed by this
Court on 20.5.2005 and, therefore, petitioner continues in service.
Shri Saboo, learned counsel invites attention to Civil
Application No.1209/2016 and submits that petitioner restricts her
prayer to protection in employment. The record shows that petitioner
was born on 19.3.1973 and caste certificate is issued on 20.1.1989.
Reliance was placed on several documents in which the caste has been
recorded as Thakur. However, the vigilance cell authorities and
respondent no.2 - Committee conducted inquiry and found that
petitioner does not belong to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe.
On the basis of socio cultural traits, ethnic linkage and
vigilance report, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that
petitioner does not belong to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe.
Petitioner has joined the employment as Drawing Teacher on
21.11.1998 with respondent no.1. In the light of material available on
record, it cannot be said that petitioner has practiced any fraud or
manipulated any document for the purposes of procuring caste
certificate or employment.
In this situation, considering the Full Bench judgment of this
court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (FB), we find her entitled
to protection of employment. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner
filing an undertaking within a period of six weeks from today with this
Court, Scrutiny Committee and her employer that neither she nor her
progeny shall claim status or benefit as Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, her
employment shall remain protected.
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
Gulande, PA
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 24.8.2016.
