Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7571 Bom

                                          {1}
                                                                    wp 12594.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.12594 OF 2016




                                                   
     Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad,
     age: 27 years, ccu: nil
     R/o Mendka, Tq. Mudkhed
     Dist. Nanded                                                   Petitioner




                                                  
              Versus


     1        The State of Maharashtra,




                                      
              Through it's Secretary,
              General Administration Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
                             
     2        The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
              Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
                            
              through Its Deputy Director (R)

     3        The Manager,
              Government Press & Book Depot,
              Nagpur                                                 Respondents

Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil advocate for the petitioner

Mr.S.P. Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

SANGITRAO S. PATIL , JJ

(Date : 21st December, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

{2} wp 12594.16.odt

3 The petitioner claims to belong to Mannervarlu Tribe and is

in receipt of the tribe certificate issued by the Competent

Authority. He has been selected for the post of Parichar Pratirup in

Government Press & Depot. However, on account of his inability to

furnish validation certificate, the order of appointment has not

been issued by the employer i.e. respondent No.3. He is called

upon by communication dated 2.12.2016 to tender the caste

certificate along with supporting documents. The petitioner

tendered necessary documents in support of his claim which have

been forwarded by respondent No.3 to the scrutiny committee on

5.12.2016. The petitioner claims that, in view of the Policy of the

State Government declared on 12.11.2011 as well as the decision

of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2136 of 2011 decided on

25.8.2011, the petitioner shall have to be issued provisional order

of appointment, subject to submission of an undertaking by the

petitioner to submit validation certificate within specified period.

The respondent employer, overlooking the directions issued by the

Government in that regard, referred to above, has refused to

issue order of appointment. As such the petitioner has approached

this Court.

4 In view of the facts stated as above, this petition can be

disposed of by issuing direction to respondent No.2 to take

{3} wp 12594.16.odt

decision on the tribe certificate verification proposal of the

petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

period of one year from today and it is accordingly directed. In

the meanwhile, respondent No.3 shall issue provisional order of

appointment, subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the

petitioner to the effect that he would submit validation certificate

within a period of one year from today and in the event of his

failure to submit validation certificate and in the event of rejection

of his claim by the scrutiny committee, the order of appointment

issued to the petitioner shall be liable to be withdrawn with

retrospective effect. The respondent No.3 employer shall issue

necessary orders of provisional appointment subject to tendering

of an undertaking by the petitioner, as referred to above, within

six weeks from today.

5 Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

vbd