Jayant S/O Shankarrao Dhatrak vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7624 Bom

                                                                                            wp4696.16.odt

                                                          1




                                                                                              
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                    
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.4696/2016

         PETITIONER:                Jayant s/o Shankarrao Dhatrak, 




                                                                   
                                    aged about 45 years, Occupation Service, 
                                    as a Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, 
                                    Warora, Resident of Sardar Patel Ward, 
                                    Warora, District Chandrapur. 




                                                   
                                                       ...VERSUS...
                             
         RESPONDENTS :    1.  State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, 
                               Department of Urban Development, 
                               Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032. 
                            
                                     2.  Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, 
                                          Chandrapur. 
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner 
      

                  Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent no.1
                  Shri S.W. Ghule, Adv. h/f Shri N.W. Almelkar, Adv. for respondent no.2
   



         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                          MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 23.12.2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel

for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his

service, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment,

reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.

wp4696.16.odt

The petitioner was appointed as an Extension Officer

(Agriculture) on 13.7.1998 on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis.

The petitioner claimed to belong to Banjara Vimukta Jati. The caste claim

of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Agriculture

Officer. The Scrutiny Committee granted a validity certificate to the

petitioner of Wanjari Caste, which falls in the Nomadic Tribes. Since the

petitioner was appointed before the cut off date and since there is no

observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has

played fraud, the petitioner has sought the protection of his services on

the initial post, i.e., the post of the Extension Officer, in view of the

judgment of the Full Bench.

Shri Phadnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states

that the issue involved in this case was also involved in a bunch of writ

petitions bearing Writ Petition No.3729/2014 and others and this Court

has, by the judgment, dated 12.2.2015 protected the services of the

petitioners therein. It is stated that in those cases the petitioners were

appointed on the posts meant for the Scheduled Tribes, but subsequently,

the validity certificate was granted to the petitioners of Koli Caste, which

falls in the Special Backward Category. It is stated that since the issue

involved in those cases and this case is almost identical and this Court has

wp4696.16.odt

protected the services of the petitioners therein, it would be necessary to

protect the services of the petitioner in this petition also.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent no.1 and the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 do not

dispute the position of law, as laid down by the Full Bench. The learned

Assistant Government Pleader, after going through the judgment, dated

12.2.2015 in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition

No.3729/2014 and others fairly admits that in those cases also the

petitioners were appointed on the post meant for the Scheduled Tribes

and they had received the validity certificates in the Special Backward

Category.

Since the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date

and since we do not find that the petitioner has fraudulently claimed the

benefits meant for the Vimukta Jatis, the services of the petitioner are

required to be protected, more so, when the case of the petitioner stands

covered by the judgment dated 12.2.2015 in a bunch of writ petitions

bearing Writ Petition No.3729/2014 and others. The petitioner's services

could be protected only as an Extension Officer and not on the

promotional post of Agriculture Officer.

Hence, for the reasons recorded herein above and the

reasons recorded in the judgment, dated 12.2.2015 in the bunch of writ

wp4696.16.odt

petitions bearing Writ Petition No.3729/2014 and others, this writ

petition is allowed. The services of the petitioner on the post of Extension

Officer (Agriculture) are protected only on the condition that the

petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and to the respondent

no.2, within six weeks, that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would

claim the benefits meant for the Vimukta Jatis, in future.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                                             JUDGE
      
   



         Wadkar