Bombay High Court
Ku. Arachana Vasantrao Dhakate vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 14 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 1407WP3489.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3489 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Ku. Archana Vasantrao Dhakate, Aged : 40
yrs., Occu : Service, R/o Madhav Nagar,
Gorakshan Road, Behind Kundan Apts., Post
Office : Gandhinagar, Dist. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Social Justice and
ig Empowerment, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Zilla Parishad Campus,
Gadchiroli.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Zilla Parishad, Akola.
4. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wadegaon, Tal
Balapur, Dist. Akola, through its Secretary.
5. Shri Jageshwar Vidyalaya, Wadegaon, Tal.
Balapur, Dist. Akola, through its Head
Master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Khubalkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M.Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. S.D.Chande, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 14.07.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2/4 1407WP3489.16-Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of
her service, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015
(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra). The
petitioner challenges the order of termination, passed by the
respondent-Management, during the pendency of the petition, thereby
terminating the services of the petitioner, in view of the invalidation of
her caste claim.
3.
The petitioner claims to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent
No.5-School on 09/09/1998, on a post earmarked for the Scheduled
Tribes. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the
Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, by the
order dated 27/05/2016 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
Though the petitioner had challenged the order of the Scrutiny
Committee in this petition, the petitioner has given up the said prayer
and has only sought the protection of her services, in view of the law
laid down by the Full Bench. Since the petitioner was terminated by an
order dated 25/06/2016 that was served on the petitioner on
29/06/2016, the petitioner has challenged the termination order also.
4. Shri Khubalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
states that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected, as
3/4 1407WP3489.16-Judgment
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the
protection of service, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457, stand satisfied in the case of the
petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was appointed before the
cut-off date, on 09/09/1998 and there is no observation in the order of
the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste
claim of the petitioner is invalidated, as in some of the documents of the
relatives of the petitioner, caste (Koshti) was recorded.
5. Shri A.M.Balpande, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri S.D. Chande,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, do not
dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full Bench. The learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 admits that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date, in the year 1998. It is stated that
there is some observation in respect of fraud in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that an appropriate
order may be passed, in the circumstances of the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. As stated
on behalf of the petitioner, both the conditions that are required to be
satisfied while seeking protection of services stand satisfied in the case
4/4 1407WP3489.16-Judgment
of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 i.e.
before the cut-off date and we do not find any observation in the order
of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fabricated the
documents and/or interpolated them with a view to seek the benefits
meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It appears from the reading of the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the caste claim of the petitioner is
invalidated, as the petitioner had failed to prove the same on the basis
of the documents and the affinity test. We do not find any observation
in regard to the fraudulent action on the part of the petitioner in
seeking the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. We quash and set aside the order of termination, dated
25/06/2016 and direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to protect the
services of the petitioner, only on the condition that the petitioner
furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent Nos.4
and 5 that neither the petitioner, nor her 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
KHUNTE
