Bombay High Court
Atul S/O Punjabrao Bhuyar vs Zilla Parishad, Washim Thr. Its ... on 6 December, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp2817.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2817/2015
Atul S/o Punjabrao Bhuyar,
aged about 44 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o Manora, Distt. Washim. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Zilla Parishad, Washim,
through its Chief Executive
Officer, Distt. Washim.
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Z.P. Parishad, Washim,
Distt. Washim.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samity Manora,
Distt. Washim.
4. The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claim,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati,
through its Chairman.
5. The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claim, Nagpur,
Distt. Nagpur, through its Chairman. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Deshpande, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 6.12.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.S.
Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. K.R.
2 wp2817.15
Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.4 and 5. None for the
respondent No.3 though served.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the
communication dated 7th April, 2015 issued by the respondent No.1 thereby
informing the petitioner that in the event he fails to submit the validity
certificate within a period of 7 days, an adverse action would be taken against
him for non-submission of the validity certificate.
4. Since the petitioner is appointed against the post reserved for
Scheduled Tribe, initially, his claim has been referred to respondent No.5
Committee which was transferred to respondent No.4 Committee.
5. As has been observed by us in various orders that it is not in the
hands of the candidate as to within how much period the claim of the
candidate should be decided. The petitioner cannot be penalized on account of
inaction on the part of the respondent No.4 Committee.
6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition.
The respondent No.4 Committee shall take decision regarding the
3 wp2817.15
claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a
period of six months from today. If the decision of the respondent No.4 goes
against the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of the communication by the petitioner.
Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders
as to costs.
ig
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
