Bombay High Court
Sanjay Surajpalsingh Mungona vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp6187.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6187/2016
PETITIONER: Sanjay Surajpalsingh Mungona
aged about 47 years, Occ. Service,
resident of Veterinary Dispensary,
Anjansingi, Dhamangaon Rly. Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry
and Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Amravati.
3. District Animal Husbandry Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati through its
Member/Secretary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for respondent no.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, 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.
wp6187.16.odt
By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his
services, in view of the full Bench judgment, reported in 2015 (1)
Mh. L.J. 457.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the judgment of
the Full Bench, as the petitioner was appointed as a Livestock Supervisor
before the cut off date on 20.12.1985, on a post earmarked for the
Vimukta Jatis and though the caste claim of the petitioner in invalidated
by the Scrutiny Committee, there is no observation in the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati.
Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri Chopde, the learned Counsel
for the respondent nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the position of law, as laid
down by the Full Bench. It is not disputed that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut off date and there is no observation in the order
of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimjukta Jati. The learned Counsel
state that an appropriate order may be passed, in the circumstances of the
case.
wp6187.16.odt
It appears on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench
and the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the services of the petitioner
are required to be protected. The petitioner was appointed as early as in
the year 1985, i.e., before the cut off date and there is no observation in
the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. It appears
that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated as he was not able to
prove the same, on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the post of Livestock Supervisor on the condition that
the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the
respondent nos.2 and 3 within one month that neither the petitioner nor
his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta
Vimukta Jati, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
