Bombay High Court
Rukhmini D/O Chitaman Sangale vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 1 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP2247.16 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2016
Rukhmini d/o Chintaman Sangale,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation-Nil,
R/o. Dwarka Nagari, Tah. Pusad,
District-Yavatmal. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member Secretary, Ervin Square,
Amravati.
2] The Chief Officer,
Pusad Municipal Council,
Pusad, District-Yavatmal.
3] Head Master,
Late Papalaji Jaiswar,
Nagar Parishad Marathi School,
Pusad, District-Yavatmal. .. Respondents
..........
Shri S.D. Khati, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent no.1,
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JULY 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule is 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 a direction to the respondent
no.2 to reinstate her in service and grant protection to her services in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone .vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the
respondent no.2 in the school of the respondent no.3 under the scheduled tribe
category on 13.8.1997. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate belonging
to Koli Mahadeo which falls under the scheduled tribes category, by the
Executive Magistrate, Akola on 18.12.1986. The caste claim of the petitioner
was submitted for verification to the respondent no.1-committee. During the
pendency of the said claim, the committee terminated the petitioner on
9.3.2012. The caste claim of the petitioner belonging to Koli Mahadeo
Scheduled Tribe was not decided by the respondent no.1-committee, till the
petitioner was terminated by the respondent no.2. Significantly, the said
termination was upheld in Writ Petition No.1199/2012 without there being
any relief of protection of services in the said petition.
The petitioner, therefore, preferred Writ Petition No.3585/2014
seeking reinstatement with protection of services. The said petition was
disposed of on 18.4.2015 with a direction to the petitioner to submit the
relevant documents for verification to respondent nos.2 and 3 within a period
of three weeks and the respondent nos.2 and 3 were directed to send the caste
claim of the petitioner for verification within 15 days from the receipt of the
documents from the petitioner and the respondent no.1-committee was
directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within eight months. The
caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated on 30.6.2015 on account of the
petitioner submitting an affidavit to give up her caste claim belonging to Koli
Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It is stated by the petitioner that in Writ Petition
No.1199/2012, she never sought for the protection of her services and only
challenged the termination order, dated 9.3.2012. Thereafter, in Writ Petition
No.3585/2014 the petitioner sought protection of her services, but since her
caste claim was never adjudicated, therefore, the same was directed to be
adjudicated by the respondent no.1-committee. Vide order dated 30.6.2015
the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated on account of the petitioner
submitting an affidavit of giving up of her caste claim.
The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.4171/2015 seeking
protection of her services. The said petition was disposed of by this court by
directing the scrutiny committee to consider the caste claim of the petitioner
by ignoring her affidavit, dated 12.6.2015 and liberty was granted to the
petitioner to seek protection in services after adjudication of her caste claim.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Khati vehemently
argued that the caste claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.
457 in the matter of Arun Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and as such the
petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with protection of her services with
respondent nos.2 and 3. He further submitted that the petitioner was
appointed on 13.8.1997 and till her termination on 9.3.2012, has rendered 15
years of her service and also there is no finding of fraud or forgery of
documents in the order passed by the scrutiny committee.
The learned counsels for the respondents did not dispute the legal
position laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench (supra). It is not
disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut off date.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the documents, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to
be protected. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date
and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the
petitioner has fabricated the documents or has manipulated the same with a
view to secure the benefits meant for Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Teacher on the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this
court and before the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks that
neither the petitioner nor her progeny would seek the benefits meant for the
Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent no.2 is directed to
reinstate the petitioner on her original post of Assistant Teacher within a
period of one week from the date of furnishing of her undertaking. Since the
petitioner was out of service from the date of termination of her services till
she would be reinstated in service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the
arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits flowing from her
reinstatement, though she would be entitled to the continuity of services. Rule
is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
