Bombay High Court
Vinod S/O Kisanrao Lonagre vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. ... on 7 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6044/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6044/2016
Vinod S/o Kisanrao Lonagre
Aged about 43 years, Occupation :Nil,
R/o At Post Pinjar, Tahsil Barshetakli,
District Akola. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
through its Member Secretary,
Bhatkuli Road, Amravati,
District Amravati.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Akola. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.D. Khati, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 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.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against
the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner on the post of
Driver and protect his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State
of Maharashtra & Others).
WP 6044/16 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondent-
Corporation on 29.01.1996 on a post earmarked for the scheduled tribes.
The petitioner had claimed to belong to Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe and
the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee
for verification. The scrutiny committee had invalidated the caste claim
of the petitioner by the order, dated 18.01.2005. After invalidation of the
caste claim of the petitioner, his services were terminated on 13.03.2005.
As in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, the terminated employees
are reinstated in service and their services are protected if they are
appointed before the cut-off date and if there is no observation in the
order of the scrutiny committee about any fraud committed by them
while seeking the benefits meant for the reserved castes or tribes to which
they claim to belong, the petitioner has approached this Court with a
limited prayer for his reinstatement as a Driver and for the protection of
his services.
4. Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that though the scrutiny committee has invalidated the caste claim of the
petitioner, there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny committee
that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the
Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the
petitioner is rejected as the petitioner could prove the same on the basis
of the documents and the affinity test. It is stated that since the
WP 6044/16 3 Judgment
petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date, his services need to be
protected.
5. Shri Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-
Corporation, submitted that since the petitioner did not diligently
prosecute his caste claim before the scrutiny committee, protection should
not be granted to him. The learned counsel, however, does not dispute
the position of law laid down by the Full Bench, reported in 2015(1)
Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra &
Others).
6. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the scrutiny committee also did not dispute the position of
law as laid down by the Full Bench. It is, however, stated that there is a
passing observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that there is
some interpolation in one of the documents pertaining to the relative of
the petitioner.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected in view
of the judgment of the Full Bench. The petitioner was appointed
before the cut-off date in the year 1996 and there is no observation in
WP 6044/16 4 Judgment
the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe. Though
there is an observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that there
is interpolation in one of the documents pertaining to the relative of
the petitioner, there is no reference in the order that the interpolation
is attributable to the petitioner. On a reading of the order of the
scrutiny committee, it appears that the scrutiny committee has
invalidated the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner could not
prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity
test. The submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2-
Corporation that the services of the petitioner should not be protected
as he had delayed the proceedings before the scrutiny committee has
no relevance with the issue that is being considered by this Court in
the instant petition. The question of delay would arise only if the
petitioner is claiming the salary for the period during which he was out
of service, which the petitioner is not. Since both the conditions that
are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of service
stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, it will be necessary to
direct the respondent no.2-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in
service with continuity of service but, without back wages or other
monetary benefits that could flow from the order of continuity of
service.
WP 6044/16 5 Judgment
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent no.2-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner on
the post of the Driver on the condition that the petitioner submits an
undertaking in this Court and before the respondent no.2-Corporation
that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits
meant for the Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent no.2-
Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Driver
within two weeks from the date of submission of the undertaking.
Though the petitioner would be entitled to the continuity in service, the
petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period
during which he was out of service. The petitioner would also not be
entitled to the monetary or other benefits that would flow from the
order of continuity of service for the period during which he was out of
service.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
