Rajesh Bhaiyaji Sant vs State Of Maha., Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3053 Bom

    WP 2843/16                                          1                         Judgment


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                      
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION No. 2843/2016




                                                              
    Rajesh Bhaiyaji Sant,
    Aged about 54 years, Occ. Deputy
    Executive Engineer, Koradi Thermal
    Power Station,




                                                             
    Resident of 385, NIT Layout,
    Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.                                                   PETITIONER
                                         .....VERSUS.....
    1.    State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,




                                                
          Ministry of Energy,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
    2.
                              
          Chief General Manager,
          Maharashtra State Power Generation
          Company Limited,
          Prakash Gad, Bandra (East),
                             
          Mumbai.
    3.    Chief Engineer,
          Koradi Thermal Power Station,
          Maharashtra State Power Generation
          Company Limited, Koradi,
      

          District Nagpur.                                                     RESPONDENTS
   



                       Shri Kunal Nalamwar, counsel for the petitioner.
          Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
                  Shri R.E. Moharir, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.





                                           CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
                                                        MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.   

                                            DATE       : 21
                                                           ST           JUNE,          2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, 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 2843/16 2 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 Junior Engineer

(Generation) on 30.06.1989 that was earmarked for the Scheduled

Tribes. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer

(Generation) on the basis of his tribe claim, on 02.05.1992. The

petitioner was confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer. After putting

in twenty seven years of service, the caste claim of the petitioner was

invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by the order dated 20.04.2016.

The petitioner is not desirous of challenging 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 Nalamwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states

that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989, i.e. before the

cut-off date, the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer

(Generation) are required to be protected. It is stated that there is no

observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 20.04.2016

that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the

WP 2843/16 3 Judgment

Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that since both the conditions that are

required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of services stands

satisfied in case of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner are

required to be protected.

5. Shri Moharir, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2

and 3, states that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, as

claimed by him, could not be confirmed but, it is admitted that the

petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer, in the year 1992. It is

stated that the services of the petitioner cannot be protected on the

promotional post and his services on the post of Junior Engineer

(Generation) could only be protected. It is fairly admitted on behalf of

the respondent nos.2 and 3 and also on behalf of the respondent no.1 by

the learned Assistant Government Pleader 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.

6. Since the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date and

since 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, the services of the petitioner are required to be

protected in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench. Since the

WP 2843/16 4 Judgment

petitioner is promoted on the basis of his caste claim in the year 1992, the

services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Generation)

could only be protected.

7. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services

of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Generation) 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 one week that

neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for

the Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future. It is needless to mention that the

monetary benefits granted to the petitioner on the basis of his caste claim

cannot be recovered by the respondent nos.2 and 3.

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

                  JUDGE                                            JUDGE
    APTE