Bombay High Court
Ku. Neeta Kashinath Sawarkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 24 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 WP.2212.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2016
Ku. Neeta Kashinath Sawarkar,
(Smt. Tejaswini Rajesh Tadas),
aged about 38 years, Occupation -
Service, R/o 91-A, Jaigurudeo
Nagar, Manewada-Besa Road,
Nagpur. ... PETITIONER.
ig
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Public
Works Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2] The Superintending Engineer,
Nagpur Pradeshic Vidyut Mandal,
Public Works Department, Bungalow
No. 39/1, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
3] Executive Engineer (Electricity),
Public Works Electricity Department,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Kaliya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 24, 2016.
2 WP.2212.16
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R.GAVAI, J).
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2] The petitioner was appointed as a Tracer on 10.6.1997 on
the establishment of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 against a post reserved
for NT-B category. Since the petitioner had applied from a reserved
category, her claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. On
2.8.2007 the claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated. As such, the
petitioner's services were terminated on 9.8.2007. The petitioner
challenged the invalidation order and termination order by way of Writ
Petition No. 3717/07. This Court vide judgment and order dated
11.9.2007 in Writ Petition No. 3717/07 remanded the matter back to the
Scrutiny Committee by setting aside the order of invalidation. As such,
the petitioner was reinstated on 29.9.2007. Vide order dated 9.12.2009
the respondent Scrutiny Committee again invalidated the claim of the
petitioner. The same was challenged by way of Writ Petition No.
344/10. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
29.11.2011 dismissed the Writ Petition upholding the order passed by
the Scrutiny Committee. The same was challenged by the petitioner
before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 13.7.2016
3 WP.2212.16
granted liberty to withdraw the S.L.P. so as to enable her to file review
before this Court.
3] It appears that during the pendency of the S.L.P., the
petitioner's services were terminated on 9.7.2014. As such, the
petitioner approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
and filed O.A. No. 516/14. The said Original Application is also rejected
on 11.2.2015. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court
being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
4] The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court being
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Tribunal and also in view of
the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in the case of Arun
s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2015(I) Mh. L.J. 457 dated 22.12.2014 claiming for
protection of her service. The petitioner has given up her claim of
belonging to N.T. and only prays for protection of her services.
5] The petition is vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.P. on
the ground that the petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and
as such, she is not entitled to protection of her services.
4 WP.2212.16
6] The perusal of the appointment order dated 10.6.1997 would
reveal that the petitioner's initial appointment was after following due
selection procedure by the Regional Subordinate Selection Board. The
petitioner has thereafter continued till 2014. As such, it does not lie in
the mouth of respondents to say that the petitioner's appointment is
casual in nature.
7]
The larger Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o
Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) has
held that such of the candidates who are appointed against a post
reserved for reserved category candidates and who have put in
substantial number of years in the service and in whose case there is no
finding of fraud, are entitled to protection of service. Admittedly, there
is no finding of fraud in the case of present petitioner. As such, we find
that the petitioner is entitled to protection of her service in view of
judgment of larger Bench of this Court in he case of Arun Sonone
(cited supra).
8] We, therefore, hold that the petitioner's services are liable to
be protected. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from today. Though we hold that the
5 WP.2212.16
petitioner would not be entitled to back wages for the period during
which she was out of employment, she would be entitled to continuity in
service with effect from the original date of her appointment, i.e.
10.6.1997 for all other purposes, including seniority and salary, etc.
9] It is, however, made clear that the petitioner would be
considered as a candidate belonging to open category and would not be
entitled to any of the benefits including promotion, etc. on the basis of
her claim of belonging to N.T.
The notices issued to respondent nos. 2 & 3 are discharged.
10] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
J.
6 WP.2212.16
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 : Ki. Jeswani, Uploaded on : 25.8.2016.
