Bombay High Court
Shri Chandusing S/O Harising ... vs The Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... on 9 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.4674.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 4674/2016
Shri Chandusing s/o Harsing Padwal
Aged about 51 years, occu: service
R/o At Ujwal nagar,
Post: Palodi, Tah. Manora
Dist.Washim. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Chief Executive officer
Zilla Parishad, Washim.
2) The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Washim.
3) The Headmaster
Zilla Parishad Primary School
Shendurjana Adhav, Tah.Manora
...RESPONDENTS
Dist.Washim.
...........................................................................................................................
Shri P.V. Bansod, Advocate for petitioner
Shri Amol Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 3
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2
............................................................................................................................
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.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27.07.2016
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:56 :::
wp.4674.16
2
passed by the respondent no.1-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim,
terminating his services as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner also prays for
a direction to protect his services, 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 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola, vide
appointment order, dated 06.10.1992. The caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the Scrutiny Committee, for verification. However, the Scrutiny
Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated
31.07.2013. The petitioner is simply seeking the protection of his services from
the respondent nos.1 to 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.V. Bansod, 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 Vimukta Jati. Shri Bansod,
the learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled both
these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on 06.10.1992 and caste
claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, as the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:56 :::
wp.4674.16
3
could not prove the same on the basis of the documents required to prove that
he belongs to 'mathura Labhan' VJ-A as well as the affinity test. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has chosen the
caste/validity certificate for 'Mathura Labhan' Vimukta Jati-A, whereas given
up his claim as belonging to "Naikada" Scheduled Tribe.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri I.J. Damle, for the
respondent no.2 and Shri Amol Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 and 3 do 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 'Mathura Labhan' VJ-A.
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 Vimukta Jati-A. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as
he 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.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:56 :::
wp.4674.16
4
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 impugned order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the respondent no.1
is set aside.
(iii) The respondents 1 and 3 are 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 respondents that
the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Mathura Labhan'
Vimukta Jati, in future.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
