Bombay High Court
Rajlaxmi Laxmanrao Darbe (After ... vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ... on 9 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6512.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6512/2016
Rajlaxmi Laxmanrao Darbe
(after marriage : Rajlaxmi Bhavesh Somalwar)
Aged 47 years, occu: Assistant Teacher,
R/o Aakar Builder, Building No.25
Chitanvis Layout,
Chhindwara Road, Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee
Through its Member-Secretary
Adiwasi Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
2) The Nagpur Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nnagpur.
3) The Education Officer,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation
O/o Commissioner, NMC
Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri I. J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 9 December, 2016
th
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.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:54 :::
wp.6512.16
2
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 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 as an
Assistant Teacher by the Education Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur vide appointment order, dated 02.11.1993. The petitioner claimed to
belong to 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee, for verification. However,
the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the
order dated 26.10.2016. The petitioner is simply seeking the protection of her
services from the respondent nos.2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.S.Parsodkar, contended that
the services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the 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 'Chhatri' Scheduled
Tribe. Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel, further submitted that the
petitioner has fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:54 :::
wp.6512.16
3
02.11.1993 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 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe as
well as the affinity test.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri I.J. Damle, for the
respondents, 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 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe.
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 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was
invalidated as she could not prove the same on the basis of the documents
produced by him before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has fulfilled
both the conditions 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:
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:54 :::
wp.6512.16
4
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 nos.2 and 3
that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Chhatri' ' Scheduled
Tribe, in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
