Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Shankarappa ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1412WP6701.16-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6701 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Santosh s/o Shankarappa Bhogaonkar, aged
about 47 years, Occu:- Service, Assistant
Teacher, Zilla Parishad Higher Primary
School, Shelgaon, Panchayat Samiti Washim,
Zilla Parishad : Washim.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
ig Department of Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Washim.
3) The Zilla Parishad, Washim, through its
Chief Executive Officer.
4) Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Akola, through its
Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.G.Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 4.
None for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 14.12.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents
and all the respondents are duly served.
1412WP6701.16-Judgment 2/4
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the respondents to protect the services of the petitioner, in the
circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher by
the respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad on 18/11/1996, on the post
earmarked for the other backward classes. The petitioner claims to
belong to Koshti caste, that was included at the relevant time in the
other backward classes. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred
to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee
verified the caste claim of the petitioner and held that the petitioner
belongs to Koshti caste, which is included in the special backward
category. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was
appointed, Koshti caste was included in the other backward classes,
whereas since the year 2013, it is included in the special backward
category. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not at fault for
the removal of Koshti caste from the list of castes in the other backward
classes and inclusion of the same in the special backward category. The
petitioner has, therefore, sought the protection of his services.
According to the petitioner, since the services of the petitioner were
terminated on 18/02/2015 and he was reinstated in terms of the order
of this court on 27/04/2015, the petitioner is entitled to seek a
direction against the respondent-Zilla Parishad to protect the services of
the petitioner with continuity of services.
1412WP6701.16-Judgment 3/4
4. Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 4, does not dispute the
statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that since the
petitioner had not falsely claimed that he belongs to the other backward
classes while securing the employment, an appropriate order may be
passed.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that when the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher, Koshti
caste was included in the other backward classes and before the caste
claim of the petitioner was validated by the Scrutiny Committee on
24/09/2013, Koshti caste was included in the special backward
category. Hence, though the claim of the petitioner of belonging to
Koshti caste is validated, it is held by the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner belongs to the caste that falls in the special backward
category. We do not find that the petitioner has played any fraud while
securing the employment in the year 1996. As at the relevant time,
Koshti caste, to which the petitioner belongs, was included in the other
backward classes and the post on which the petitioner was appointed
was earmarked for the other backward classes. In the circumstances of
the case, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. Since the
services of the petitioner were wrongfully terminated on 18/02/2015,
though the petitioner was not at fault, the services of the petitioner
need to be protected with continuity.
1412WP6701.16-Judgment 4/4
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad is directed to protect the
services of the petitioner with continuity of service. Since the petitioner
has not worked for the period during which he was out of service in the
year 2015, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary
for the said period though the petitioner would be entitled to all other
benefits flowing from the order of continuity of service. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
