Bombay High Court
Bhumeshwar Murlidhar Dhakate vs The Scheduled Tribes Certificate ... on 2 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp4808.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.48O8 OF 2016
Bhumeshwar Murlidhar Dhakate,
Aged 40 years, Occupation-Service
as Assistant Teacher,
R/o. Palandur (Chouras), Tah. Lakhni,
District-Bhandara. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Vice Chairman,
Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
2] Shri Gurudeo Chintaman Bisane,
Kanya Vidyalaya, through its
H.M., Mohadi, District-Bhandara.
3] Sai Baba Devasthan through its
Secretary, Takia Ward,
Bhandara.
4] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. .. Respondents
..........
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 4,
Shri R.S. Chavan, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 02, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to protect the services of the petitioner, in view of
the judgment of the full bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457
(Arun s/o
Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others).
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on
22.10.1999. The petitioner claimed to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribes. The
caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification, however, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim
of the petitioner by the order dated 28.7.2016. The petitioner simply seeks the
protection of his services.
Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended
that as per the judgment of the full bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457,
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the
protection of the services stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner. The
petitioner was appointed before the cut off date that is on 22.10.1999 and the
petitioner has not fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba
Scheduled Tribe. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel, further submitted that both
the conditions are satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the
petitioner was appointed on 22.10.1999 that is before the cut off date and
there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Halba Scheduled
Tribe. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel, submitted that the caste claim of the
petitioner is rejected by the Scrutiny Committee as the petitioner could not
prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 4 and Shri Chavan, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 did not dispute the position
of law as laid down by the full bench. It is fairly admitted that there is no
observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba, Scheduled Tribe.
After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the judgment of
the full bench, we are of the opinion that the services of the petitioner are
required to be protected, in view of the judgment of the full bench. The
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher before the cut off date
28.11.2000 that is in the year 1999 and there is no observation in the order of
the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the caste claim
of the petitioner was invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on
the basis of the material produced by him before the Scrutiny Committee.
Thus, both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the
protection of his services stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of
the petitioner on the post of an Assistant Teacher on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking in the Court and before the respondent
nos.2 and 3 that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the
benefits meant for Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
