Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Motilal Chandan vs Vice-Chairman And Joint ... on 20 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.6476.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6476/2016
Rajesh Motilal Chandan
Aged about 45 years, occu: Service
R/o Koshatwar Ward, New Pusad,
Behind Mukhare Home,
N.Garden Road, Distt.Yavatmal. ..PETITIONER
1)
ig v e r s u s
Vice Chairman & Joint Commissioner,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2) Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
3) Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
4) Block Development Officer
Panchayat Samiti, Pusad
Dist.Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.H.Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent no.1
Shri V.B.Bhise, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 20 December, 2016
th
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:23 :::
wp.6476.16
2
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 no. 2 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 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prishad, Yavatmal vide
appointment order, dated 29.06.1995. The petitioner claimed to belong to
'Dhoba' 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
23.08.2016. The petitioner is simply seeking the protection of his services from
the respondent nos.2 to 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Narnaware, 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 'Dhoba' Scheduled
Tribe. Shri Narnaware, the learned counsel, further submitted that the
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:23 :::
wp.6476.16
3
petitioner has fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on
20.06.1995 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 prove that he belongs to 'Dhoba' Scheduled Tribe as
well as the affinity test.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri N.H.Joshi, for the
respondent no.1 and Shri V.B.Bhise, the learned counsel for the respondent
nos.2 and 3, do 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 'Dhoba' 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 'Dhoba' 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.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:23 :::
wp.6476.16
4
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 no. 2 is 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.2 to 4
that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduled
Tribe, in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
