Bombay High Court
Sunil Gopalrao Bundele vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2710.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2005
PETITIONER: Sunil Gopalrao Bundele
aged 28 years, Occupation : Service,
permanent resident of Chhota Bazar,
Tahsil Akot, District : Akola, presently
serving as Junior Operator posted at
Cholak, Tahsil Hatkalangali, Kolhapur.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of
Tribe Claims, Amravati through its
Chairman.
3. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
(C M) through its Superintending Engineer,
Tarabai Park, Kolhapur.
4. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State
Electricity Board, Divisional Office,
Jaisingpur.
5. The Executive Magistrate, Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.G. Joshi, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5
Shri A.D. Mohogaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 22.08.2016
wp2710.05.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.)
1. Heard Shri S.G. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner,
Shri Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1,
2 and 5 and Shri Mohogaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3
and 4.
2.
Respondent no.2 - Committee by impugned order, dated
21.3.2005, invalidated the caste claim of petitioner as belonging to
Dhoba, Scheduled Tribe. In view of the order of status-quo passed by this
Court on 3.6.2005 petitioner continues in service.
3. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel invites attention of this Court to
the fact that petition has been amended and petitioner restricts his prayer
to protection of employment. The vigilance report and enquiry conducted
by respondent no.2 - Committee indicate that on the basis of customs and
socio cultural traits, Committee reached to the conclusion that petitioner
does not belong to Dhoba, Scheduled Tribe. The challenge in the petition
does not show this application of mind to be erroneous or perverse.
4. Petitioner joined employment with respondent nos.3 and 4
as Junior Operator in 1999. 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.
wp2710.05.odt
5. In this situation, considering the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone...Versus...State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457, we find the
petitioner 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 his employer that neither
he nor his progeny shall claim status or benefit as Dhoba, Scheduled
Tribe, his employment shall remain protected.
6. Subject to this, writ petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp2710.05.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 : 24/08/2016
