Bombay High Court
Ku. Archana Shamrao Sonkusala vs State Of Maha., Thr. Sect., Dept. ... on 23 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
WP837.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2016.
PETITIONER: Ku.Archana Shamrao Sonkusale,
aged about 37 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Panjabrao Colony, Morshi, Tq.
Morshi, Distt.Amravati.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Social Justice Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Amravati.
3) The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4) The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Morshi, Tq.
Morshi, Distt.Amravati.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.R.V.Kaliya, A.G.P. for respondent no.1.
Mr.M.A.Sable, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 23rd AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction
to respondent nos.1 to 4 to regularize the services of the
petitioner.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner
was issued a caste certificate certifying her to be belonging to
Halba Scheduled Tribe on 2nd of September, 1994. After
completion of H.S.C. and D.Ed., the petitioner came to be
appointed on 10th of December, 1999 on the establishment of
respondent nos.2 to 4 as a Primary Teacher. Since the said
appointment was against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, it
was subject to availability of the validity certificate.
4. However, it appears that the entire record in the office
of the Tahsildar Narkhed has been destroyed and as such the
original record with regard to issuance of caste certificate of the
petitioner is not available.
5. The petitioner has now been granted certificate
certifying him to be belonging to Halba Koshti which comes under
the Special Backward Class. The proposal for verifying the said
claim is forwarded to the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee.
6. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner
cannot be penalized for destruction of the record in Tahsildar's
office.
7. In any case, since the petitioner is appointed prior to
28th of November, 2000, her services shall be entitled to be
protected in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court
in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone ..vs.. State of Mah
reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457.
8. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in the
following terms.
(i) The appointment of the petitioner shall stand
protected.
(ii) In the event petitioner's claim as belonging to
Special Backward Class is found to be validated
she will be considered to be a candidate
belonging to Special Backward Category.
(iii) In the event petitioner's claim as belonging to
Special Backward Class is invalidated, she will
be considered to be a candidate belonging to
Open Category.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
CERTIFICATE
I Certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.
Uploaded on : 25/8/2016.
