Bombay High Court
Nitin Jagatapalsingh Pachlore vs Zilla Parishad Amravati Thr. ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 0606WP1617.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Nitin Jagatpalsingh Pachlore, Age - 45 years,
Occ- Service, R/o- At Post Kurha, Tq. Tiwasa,
Dist. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Zilla Parishad Amravati, Through it's Chief
ig Executive Officer, Camp, Amravati, Tq. And
Dist. Amravati.
2. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Camp, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
3. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Tiwasa, Tq. Tiwasa, Dist. Amravati.
4. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1, through its Chairman /
Secretary, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Office
at 5th Floor, A-Wing, New Administrative
Building, In Front of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
Tq.and Dist. Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.D.P. Thakre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 06.06.2016
2/3 0606WP1617.16-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally as a notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents
and the respondents are duly served.
The only prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition
is for the protection of his services till his caste claim is decided by the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner challenges the order of
his proposed termination, dated 09/02/2016.
Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that though the caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the
respondent No.4-Scrutiny Committee, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have
proposed to terminate the services of the petitioner in the absence of
the caste validity certificate. It is stated that the petitioner is not at fault
in not producing the caste validity certificate, as the caste claim of the
petitioner is still pending before the Scrutiny Committee.
Shri D. P. Thakre, the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4-Scrutiny
Committee, states on instructions that the caste claim of the petitioner
is pending before the Scrutiny Committee and the same would be
decided at the earliest.
3/3 0606WP1617.16-Judgment
In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
of proposed termination is quashed and set aside. The respondent
No.4- Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of eighteen
months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the
Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the
Scrutiny Committee on 27/06/2016. Since the petitioner was not at
fault in not producing the caste validity certificate, the services of the
petitioner are protected till his caste claim is decided. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
