Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O. Dattatraya Kalyankar vs Maha. State Secondary And Higher ... on 17 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1407.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1407/2016
PETITIONER: Sanjay s/o Dattatraya Kalyankar
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Gurukrupa Bhaji Bazar, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune through its
Secretary.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Amravati Divisional Office, Amravati,
Through its Divisional Secretary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 17.06.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent - Board to grant protection to the services of the petitioner on
the post of Junior Clerk.
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the
respondent - Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary
wp1407.16.odt
Education Board on 5.2.1992 after following the due process of selection.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on a post
that was earmarked for the open category. It is stated that while in
service, the respondent - Board directed the petitioner to submit the caste
validity certificate, as according to the Board, the appointment of the
petitioner was made on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes. The
petitioner objected and produced the caste validity certificate to show that
the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes. The respondent -
Board threatened to terminate the services of the petitioner and in this
background, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to
the Board to protect his services.
Shri Saboo, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed on a post that was earmarked for the
open category. It is stated that though a caste certificate was submitted by
the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Castes, the appointment of the
petitioner was not on a post reserved for the Scheduled Castes. It is stated
that in any case, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was appointed on
a post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and the petitioner has not
proved his caste claim, the petitioner is entitled to protection, in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is
submitted that the petitioner has tendered a caste validity certificate to
wp1407.16.odt
show that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes and the
respondent - Board should accept the said certificate and protect his
services.
Shri Parchure, the learned Counsel for the respondents
strongly opposed the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was
appointed on a post earmarked for the open category. It is stated that the
petitioner had applied for a post reserved for the Scheduled Castes and he
was duly appointed on the said post. It is, however, not disputed that the
petitioner has supplied the caste validity certificate to show that the
petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes. It is fairly admitted 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 sought the benefits meant for any particular caste.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that it would be necessary to direct the respondent - Board to protect the
services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk. It would not be
necessary to embark upon the question whether the petitioner was
appointed on the post that was reserved for the Scheduled Castes or
earmarked for the open category as in the alternative, the petitioner has
prayed for the protection of his services, in view of the Full Bench
Judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. Even if it is held, as
wp1407.16.odt
canvassed on behalf of the Board, that the petitioner was appointed on a
post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes, still, the services of the
petitioner as a Junior Clerk are required to be protected. The petitioner
was admittedly appointed in the year 1992, that is, before the cut off
date. The petitioner would be entitled to the protection of the services, in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench. Also, in almost similar set of facts,
this Court has allowed Writ Petition No.1352/2015, by the order dated
20.8.2015 and protected the services of the petitioner therein. It would be
necessary to pass a similar order in this case also.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent - Board is directed to protect the services of the
petitioner as a Junior Clerk only on the condition that the petitioner
tenders an undertaking that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would
claim the benefits meant for the Scheduled Castes, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
