Bombay High Court
Mrs. Sunita W/O Shatrughna ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 13 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6485.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6485/2016
Mrs. Sunita w/o Shatrughna Taksale
Maiden name : Ku. Sunita d/o Tukaram Rane
Aged about 52 years, occu: service
Assistant Teacher, R/o C/o Shri S.D. Taksale,
Ambavihar, Near Ravi nagar
Amravati. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of Education
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati
Through its Chairman.
3) Shri Nagnath Shikshan Sanstha
Brahmanwada Thadi, Amravati
Through its President
4) Shri Nagnath Vidyalaya,
Brahmanwada Thadi
Taluka, Chandurbazar, Dist. Amravati
Through its Headmaster ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 &2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 13th December, 2016
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:44:00 :::
wp.6485.16
2
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. 1,3 and 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 Headmaster of the respondent no.4-School, vide
appointment order, dated 09.08.1997. The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Koli
Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to
the respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee, for verification. However, the
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order
dated 28.09.2016. The petitioner is simply seeking the protection of her
services from the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.G. Joshi, 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 - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:44:00 :::
wp.6485.16
3
had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled
Tribe. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner
has fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on
09.09.1997 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 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled
Tribe as well as the affinity test.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri A.A. Madiwale, for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2, 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 'Koli Mahadeo' 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 'Koli Mahadeo' 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 her before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has fulfilled
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:44:00 :::
wp.6485.16
4
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:
O R D E R
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent nos. 3 and 4 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. 3
and 4 that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Koli
Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe, in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
