Bombay High Court
Shri Narayan S/O Vithoba Kumbhare vs Joint Commissioner And Vice ... on 7 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 0707wp2383.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shri Narayan s/o Vithoba Kumbhare, Aged
46 Yrs, Occu. Service, R/o HA-46, B-Block,
Kaweri Apartment, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi-
12,
At present - Mokhe, Post - Virsee, Tah.
Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman,
ig Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2) Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), through Director General, Krishi
Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi.
3) Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI)
Through its Director, Pusa, New Delhi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R.Narnaware, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.N.R.Rode, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr. N.P. Lambat, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 07.07.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission, as a notice for final disposal was
issued to the respondents on 21/04/2016 and the respondents are duly
served with the notice.
2/4 0707wp2383.16-Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his
services in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment,
reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus
State of Maharashtra & others).
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant
Extension Officer on 06/02/1998 that was reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes. The petitioner claims to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe and
the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee
for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of
the petitioner on 30/03/2016. The petitioner has given up the challenge
to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and has only sought the
protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench.
4. Shri S.R. Narnaware, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, states by referring to the judgment of the Full Bench that the
petitioner is entitled to protection. It is stated that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date and there is no observation in the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
claimed the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated
that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated as in the documents
pertaining to the uncle of the petitioner, 'Koshti' was recorded in the
3/4 0707wp2383.16-Judgment
caste column. It is stated that since both the conditions that are
required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of service stand
satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner are
required to be protected.
5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed an affidavit-in-
reply. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner had cleared
the combined competitive examination for Agricultural Research Service
in the year 1999 and was selected and appointed by the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research on the basis of his caste claim. It is stated that
the services of the petitioner were confirmed after completion of the
probation period of two years, on 30/08/2003. It is stated that the
petitioner was thereafter selected and posted as a Scientist in the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research in the Department of Agriculture. It is
not disputed that the appointment of the year 1999 as a Research
Assistant was in the same department. It is further admitted that there
is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba
Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated,
as entry of "Koshti" was recorded in certain documents pertaining to the
relatives of the petitioner. It is stated that an appropriate order may be
passed, in the circumstances of the case.
4/4 0707wp2383.16-Judgment
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny
Committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to
be protected on the post of Scientist. There is no observation in the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The
petitioner is admittedly appointed before the cut-off date and, therefore,
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench while seeking protection of services stand
satisfied in the case of the petitioner.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the
services of the petitioner on the post of Scientist only on the condition
that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of four weeks that neither the
petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for the Halba
Scheduled Tribe, in future. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE / KHUNTE
