Pradip S/O. Dadarao Budhe vs Joint Commissioner And Vice ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3687 Bom

                                                                                                               wp.2846.16
                                                                 1




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




                                                                                     
                                                                ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 2846 /2016 Pradip s/o Dadarao Budhe

Aged about 53 years, occu: service R/o Plot No.9, Ambore Nagar, Near Post Office, Hingna District : Nagpur 441110. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1)

Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee

Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.

    2)        The Chief Regional Officer
              The Oriental Insurance  Co. Ltd.
       


              S.K.Towers,  4th floor, 
              Neson Square, Chhindwara Road
    



              Nagpur - 440013.              ..                                                     ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner

Mr.Nitin Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents ............................................................................................................................

                                                         CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                        MRS .   SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ . 
                                                         DATED :       11th July, 2016





    JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, 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.

wp.2846.16

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks protection of his

services, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, in the case of Arun

Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015(1)Mh.L.J.457.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on 9.10.1991

against a post reserved for 'Dhangad' Scheduled Tribe, on the basis of caste

certificate dated 17.08.1984 issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Executive

Magistrate, Hingna. The petitioner had applied for verification of his caste

claim as belonging to 'Dhangad' Scheduled Tribe, in the office of the

respondent no.1, on 03.08.2015. The said proposal was also forwarded to the

respondent no.2. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4618/2015 seeking

directions to the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee to decide his caste claim

and also protection of his services. This Court, vide an order dated

07.09.2015, directed the respondent no.1 to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of one year from

receipt of the caste claim. The services of the petitioner were protected till

the Scrutiny Committee decides his caste claim. The caste claim of the

petitioner was, however, invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee vide its order

dated 25.04.2016 on the ground that some of the documents of the petitioner

and his relatives were found to be of 'Dhangar' caste and also on the ground

of affinity test. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present

Petition, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench cited supra.

4. Mr. S.R.Narnaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner

wp.2846.16

vehemently argued that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991,

before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000, the services of the petitioner on the

post of Assistant, are required to be protected. He further submitted that there

is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 25.04.1999,

that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhangad'

Scheduled Tribe. He states 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. Mr. Nitin Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute that there is no

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

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhangad', Scheduled Tribe.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal

of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, 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 had fraudulently secured the

benefits meant for 'Dhangad' Scheduled Tribe. In view thereof, the services of

the petitioner are required to be protected, as per the law laid down by the

Full Bench.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.

wp.2846.16

The respondent no.2 is directed to protect the services of the petitioner on

the post of Assistant, only on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an

undertaking in this Court and before the respondent no. 2 within a period of

four weeks, that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits

meant for 'Dhangad' Scheduled Tribe, in future.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to

costs.

                            JUDGE
                                  ig                        JUDGE
                                
    sahare