Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Mahdhav Nikhare vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. ... on 9 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6622.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6622/2016
Vijay s/o Madhav Nikhare
Aged 45 years, occu: service
R/o Sheshnagar, Sawarkar Layout
Behind Nag Mandir, Brahmapuri
Tq.Brahmapuri
Dit.Chandrapur -441206 ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee
Through its Member-Secretary
Complex Area, Near Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli, Distt. Gadchirloli.
2) Newajabai Hitkarni Education Society
Through its Secretary
Bramhapuri, Dist.Chandrapur -441206.
3) Headmaster,
Newajabai Hitkarni Girls High School
Bramhapuri
Dist.Chandrapur 441 206.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 4
Shri S.V.Ingole, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 9th December, 2016
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:53 :::
wp.6622.16
2
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 seeks a direction against the
respondent nos. 2 to 4 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 Headmistress of the respondent no.3-School, vide
appointment order, dated 11.02.1999. The petitioner claimed to belong to
'Halba' 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
31.12.2015. The petitioner is simply seeking the protection of his services from
the respondent nos.2 to 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.D. Khati, 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
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:53 :::
wp.6622.16
3
had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. Shri
Khati, the learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled
both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on 11.02. 1999 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
he belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe as well as the affinity test.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri A.A.Madiwale, for the
respondent nos. 1 and 4 and Shri S.V. Ingole, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 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 'Halba' 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 'Halba' 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
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:03:53 :::
wp.6622.16
4
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 nos. 2 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 respondent nos.2
and 3 that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Halba'
Scheduled Tribe, in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
