Bombay High Court
Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 15 December, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
WP 2911/15
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2911/2015
Uddhav s/o Rangnath Suryawanshi,
age 41 yrs., occu.service,
c/o Shivaj s/o Ramrao Kotsulwar,
Basweshwar Galli, Hadolthi.
Tq.Ahmedpur Dist.Latur.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ,
ig through its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2] The Commissioner,
Disabled Welfare Department,
Pune. Charch Gate, Pune-1.
3] The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Latur Division, Latur.
4] District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
5] Krantijyot Mahila Mandal, Jalkot.
Tq.Jalkot Dist.Latur.
Through its President.
6]
Sant Gadge Baba,
Residential Ear Deaf School,
Hadolti Tq.Jalkot Dist.Latur.
Through its Head Master.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri R.I. Wakade, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.R.P. Gour, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
None present for respondent no.4 though served.
Shri J.M. Murkute, Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:33:52 :::
WP 2911/15
- 2 -
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 15.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule
made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing at this stage.
2] Mr.Wakade, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year
2003 in fact from open category. Other candidate was
appointed from the reserved category. According to the
learned counsel, even approval is granted to the
petitioner in the year 2007 wherein it is nowhere shown
that the petitioner is occupying the post meant for
reserved category;. The approval has been granted to the
petitioner upto 2013, however, subsequently the proposal
has not been forwarded by the institution. The learned
counsel submits that the institution is now contending
that the petitioner is appointed from ST category.
Though the petitioner belongs to ST category, still his
appointment is from the open category. The learned
WP 2911/15
- 3 -
counsel submits that at the relevant time in the year
2003, the reservation applicable was 34%. The Roster
will have to be considered from that point of view.
However, the Roster as approved by the BC Cell in the
year 2014 is considering the reservation to the extent of
50%.
3] Mr.Murkute, learned counsel for the institution
submits that the petitioner is appointed from the
reserved category. Even his application filed in the
year 2005 states that the petitioner had applied from ST
category. Even the petitioner has moved the scrutiny
committee for validation of his tribe claim. The said
documents are filed on record. The learned counsel
submits that the Roster is approved by the BC Cell and as
per the approved Roster also, the petitioner is shown as
against the reserved category. The learned counsel
further submits that the institution has already
forwarded the proposal to the respondent - authority
seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner
from ST category and the same is pending with the
authority.
4] We have heard the learned AGP also.
WP 2911/15
- 4 -
5] The fact that the petitioner is serving with the
respondent - institution is not disputed. It is also not
disputed that upto the year 2013, the appointment of the
petitioner is approved. Subsequent proposal was not
submitted. It is also the fact that the validation
proceedings in respect of the tribe claim of the
petitioner are pending consideration with the committee.
The petitioner has already approached the scrutiny
committee in that regard. The said proceedings are not
yet decided. The Roster is approved by the BC Cell. In
the said approved Roster, the petitioner is shown
occupying the post meant for ST category candidate.
6] The petitioner may approach the BC Cell with regard
to his grievance that at the relevant time when the
petitioner was appointed, the post was meant for open
category.
7] The respondent - institution has already forwarded
the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner from ST category to the respondent no.4. The
respondent no.4 shall process the said proposal and take
decision on it expeditiously and preferably within three
months. He shall not reject the proposal only on the
WP 2911/15
- 5 -
ground that the validation proceedings are pending. Of
course, the parties can take further steps pursuant to
the judgment of the committee in the validation
proceedings so also if the petitioner approaches the BC
Cell and some further orders are passed by the BC Cell in
tune with the same.
8] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/c1512166.doc
