Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Lahuji Gonnade vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 16 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6773.16.[J]odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6773 OF 2016
Gajanan s/o Lahuji Gonnade,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Shiv Mandir Chowk near
Ravi Navle's House, Sham Nagar,
Chandrapur, Distt.Chandrapur. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1]
Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
member Secretary, complex area,
Near Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
District-Gadchiroli.
2] Lokmanya Tilak Smarak Mandal
Through its Secretary, Main Road,
Chandrapur.
3] Head Master,
Lokmanya Tilak Kanya Vidyalay,
Main Road, Chandrapur,
District-Chandrapur.
4] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. .. Respondents
..........
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 4.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:29:23 :::
WP 6773.16.[J]odt 2
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, in the case of Arun Sonone .vs. State of
Maharashtra.
3] Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as
Peon by the respondent no.3, vide appointment order, dated 31.7.1995. 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 28.10.2016. The petitioner is simply seeking
the protection of his services from the respondent nos.2 and 3.
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 had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Halba Scheduled
Tribe. Shri Khati, learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner has
fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on 31.7.1995
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
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:29:23 :::
WP 6773.16.[J]odt 3
prove that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe as well as the affinity test.
5] Learned Additional Government Pleader Shri A.S Fulzele for the
respondent nos.1 and 4 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 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 he 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
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 Peon, 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
Gulande, PA
