Bombay High Court
Ku. Nita D/O Rajdharsing Rajput ( ... vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6543.16.[J]odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2016
Ku. Nita d/o Rajdharsing Rajput,
@ Nita w/o Ajitsinh Parmar,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o. Plot No.57, Santaji Nagar,
Malkapur, Tahsil - Malkapur,
District - Buldhana. .. Petitioner
ig .. Versus ..
1] The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola,
Tahsil and District - Akola,
through its Chairman.
2] Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, through
its Chief Executive Officer. .. Respondents
..........
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
1] 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.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::
WP 6543.16.[J]odt 2
2] By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent no.2 to protect the services of the petitioner, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench, in the case of Arun Sonone .vs. State of
Maharashtra.
3] Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Primary Teacher on 8.9.1995 by the respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad.
The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' caste which is recognized
as 'Vimukta Jati' (A) by the State of Maharashtra and it is placed at Sr.No.10
in the list of De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jati). The caste claim of the petitioner
was referred to the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee through the office of
the respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad. During the course of scrutiny of the caste
claim of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 issued a notice to the petitioner
directing him to submit his caste validity certificate and upon her failure,
it was directed to terminate her services. The petitioner, therefore, filed a
petition vide Writ Petition No.6414/2015 before this Hon'ble Court. This court
directed the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of
the petitioner within a period of one year and till that time, the services of the
petitioner were protected. Eventually, the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated 26.9.2016. The
petitioner is seeking the protection of her services from the respondent no.2-
Zilla Parishad.
4] Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, contended
that the services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::
WP 6543.16.[J]odt 3
judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Arun Sonone .vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. Page 457. He submitted that as
per the directions in the said judgment, it is necessary that the petitioner is to
be appointed before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000 and there should be no
observation that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for
Rajput Bhamta. Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel, further submitted that the
petitioner has fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on
8.9.1995 and 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 required to prove that she belongs to Rajput Bhamta as well as the
affinity test.
5] Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.H. Joshi for the
respondent no.1, does not dispute the settled position of law, as laid down in
the judgment of the Full Bench (supra). It is fairly admitted that in the order
of the Scrutiny Committee, there is no observation that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Rajput Bhamta.
6] After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record and the
judgment of the Full Bench, it appears that the services of the petitioner are
required to be protected. The petitioner was admittedly appointed before the
cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000. So also, there is no observation in the order of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for Rajput Bhamta. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as
she could not prove the same on the basis of the documents produced by her
before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::
WP 6543.16.[J]odt 4
that are required to be satisfied, while seeking the protection of the services, as
per the judgment of the Full Bench.
7] In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is
passed :
O R D E R
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent no.2 is directed to protect the services of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, on the condition that the petitioner
should furnish an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent no.2
that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for Rajput Bhamta, in
future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
