Bombay High Court
Manoj S/O Nilkanthrao Kumbhare vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 9 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 4125/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4125/2016
Manoj S/o Nilkanthrao Kumbhare,
Aged about Major, R/o Ayodhya Nagar,
Shikshak Colony, Gadchiroli,
Dist - Gadchiroli. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Gadchiroli.
2. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
Through its Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
ig RESPONDENTS
Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 3.
Shri J.S. Mokadam, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 9 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 nos.2 and 3 to protect the services of the petitioner 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 4125/16 2 Judgment
3. Shri Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that though the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the
scheduled tribes and the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, the
services of the petitioner need to be protected as the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1998 on the post of Assistant
Teacher and there is not observation in the order of the scrutiny
committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant
for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that both the conditions that
are required to be satisfied for seeking the protection of service in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench, stand satisfied in the case of the
petitioner.
4. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the scrutiny committee and Shri Mokadam, the learned
counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, do not dispute the position of law
as laid down by the Full Bench. It is not disputed that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1997 and there is no
observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe.
5. Since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied
while seeking the protection of the services, stand satisfied in the case of
the petitioner, the services of the petitioner need to be protected on the
post of an Assistant Teacher.
WP 4125/16 3 Judgment
6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos.2
and 3 are directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of
Assistant Teacher only on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an
undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos.2 and 3 within
four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the
benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
APTE
