Vilas S/O. Gangaram Neware vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5111 Bom

                                                                                                                                              wp6907-15
                                                                                  1




                                                                                                                                            
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                        
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                              WRIT PETITION No.6907 OF 2015




                                                                                                       
    Vilas s/o Gangaram Neware, 
    aged about 50 years, Occ. Presently out of job, 
    Resident of Plot no. 76, Sainagar, 
    Wadi, Nagpur.                     ....                                                                            ...                     Petitioner.




                                                                                 
                                                ..Versus..

    Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, 
    P.O. Krishinagar, Akola, 
                                                    
    throiugh its Registrar.              ...                                                                          ...      Respondents.
                                                   
    .......................................................................................................................................................
    Mr. Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate  for petitioner.
    Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent. 
    .......................................................................................................................................................
           


                                                CORAM                  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
        



                                                                           KUM.  INDIRA JAIN, 
                                                                                              JJ.

                                                DATE                   :  31 st
                                                                                
                                                                                August, 2016.





    JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti  A. Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

2. By this writ petition, petitioner only seeks the protection of his

services in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the

judgment reported in 2015(1) Mah. L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs.

.....2/-

wp6907-15

State of Mah. And others.)

3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver by the respondent

University on 13.11.1995, on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes.

The petitioner claimed to belong to Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe. The

respondent University asked the petitioner to supply the necessary documents

and the caste certificate to the University so that the same could be referred to

the scrutiny committee for verification. Since the petitioner did not supply the

necessary documents, the University terminated the services of the petitioner

by the order dated 31.10.2011. The petitioner approached this Court with a

challenge to the order of termination in W.P. No. 5588/2011 and this Court,

by partly allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the

scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a

stipulated period. Since the scrutiny committee did not decide the matter

within a reasonable time the petitioner again approached this court in a

second writ petition, bearing W.P. No. 5890/2012 challenging the termination

order. This Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the

University as during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had

secured a caste validity certificate to show that the petitioner belongs to the

Special Backward Category. The petitioner made representations to the

respondent University for the protection of his service but the respondent

.....3/-

wp6907-15

University did not favourably decide the same. In the aforesaid set of facts, the

petitioner has filed the instant petition for protection of his services in view of

the judgment of the Full Bench.

4. Shri Nalamwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that

the issue involved in this case was also involved in Writ Petition Nos.

3729/2014 and others that were decided by the common judgment dated

12.2.2015. It is stated that by the said judgment, this Court had held that the

petitioners in those cases were entitled to protection after they secured the

caste validity certificate in respect of Special Backward Category though they

had initially claimed to belong to the Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that just

like the facts in those decided cases, the petitioner in this case has rendered

service to the University for a period of more than 15 years before he was

terminated. It is stated that a similar order could be passed in this writ

petition, on parity. It is stated that since the petitioner is appointed before the

cut-off date in the year 1995 and since there is no observation in the order of

the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the

benefits meant for the Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe, the services of the

petitioner are required to be protected in view of the judgment of the Full

Bench and in view of the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in W.P. No. 3729/2014

and others.

.....4/-

wp6907-15

5. Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent University

does not dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and that

he had worked for more than 15 years till his services were terminated in the

year 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the

issue involved in this petition stands answered in favour of the petitioner by

the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in a bunch of writ petitions bearing No.

3729/2014 and others. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in

the circumstances of the case.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal

of the judgment of the Full Bench, the order of the scrutiny committee as also

the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in W.P. No. 3729/2014 and others, it appears

that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected, on parity. In

almost similar set of facts this Court had by the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in

W.P. No. 3729/2014 and others, protected the services of the petitioners in

those cases. In those cases also, the petitioners had worked for more than 15

years. Like the case in hand, in those decided cases also the petitioner had

initially claimed to belong to Scheduled Tribes and subsequently by giving up

their tribe claim they claimed to belong to Special Backward Category. Since

the facts and the issue involved in the decided cases and the present case are

identical, it will be necessary to grant similar relief in favour of the petitioner,

.....5/-

wp6907-15

on parity. We are inclined to protect the services of the petitioner since the

petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 i.e. before the cut-off date and

there is no observation of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons

recorded in the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in W.P. No. 3729/2014 and others,

we allow this writ petition. We direct the respondent University to reinstate

the petitioner in service, subject to the condition that the petitioner submits an

undertaking to the University, the scrutiny committee and in this Court that

neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the

Gond Gowari Schedule Tribe, in future. The respondent University is directed

to reinstate the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the

undertaking from the petitioner. It is needless to mention that though the

petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service, the

petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary or any other monetary

benefits that would flow from the order of continuity of service.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                JUDGE 
    Hirekhan


                                                                                                .....6/-




                                                                                        wp6907-15





                                                                                      
                                          CERTIFICATE




                                                             

I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.

Uploaded by : R.B. Hirekhan. Uploaded on:01-09-2016.

P.A.

.....7/-

wp6907-15

...../-