Bombay High Court
Ku. Jyoti Keshaorao Khadge vs Shri Shiwaji Education Society, ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp1915.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1915 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1799 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1916 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1919 OF 2015 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2015 AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1932 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION NO. 1915 OF 2015
Ku. Jaya Pralhadrao Dhakite
aged about 38 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Radhakrishna Colony, Morshi,
Taluka - Morshi, District -
Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Panchawati, Amravati, through
its Secretary Shri V.G. Bhamburkar.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.V. & R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. M.S. Rane, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2015
Dinesh s/o Panjabrao Tapre,
aged about 37 years,
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:37 :::
wp1915.15 2
occupation - Service, r/o
Near Sandip Mangalam,
c/o Arun Kapse, Yavatmal ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Amravati, through its Secretary
having its office at Amravati.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1799 OF 2015
Smt. Jyoti Vithalrao Ale,
aged about 39 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Sanludkar Nagar, Hingni Road,
Daryapur, District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Amravati, through its Secretary
having its office at Amravati.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:37 :::
wp1915.15 3
WRIT PETITION NO. 1916 OF 2015
Dr. Ku. Sangita Pralhadrao Dhakite,
aged about 36 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
S.B.I. Colony, Court Road,
Paratwada, District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Panchawati, Amravati, through
its Secretary Shri V.G. Bhamburkar.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.V. & R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2015
Ku. Jyoti Keshaorao Khadge,
aged about 42 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Near Poonam Photo Studio,
Gadge Nagar, Amravati,
District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Panchawati, Amravati, through
its Secretary Shri V.G. Bhamburkar.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.V. & R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:37 :::
wp1915.15 4
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. M.S. Rane, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2015
Ku. Vanita d/o Kedarnath Tikas,
aged about 32 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Laxmi Nagar, Behind Kapil Dugdha
Dairy, Varud, District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Panchawati, Amravati, through
its Secretary Shri V.G. Bhamburkar.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.V. & R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. M.S. Rane, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1919 OF 2015
Sandeep s/o Ambadas Tikkas,
aged about 38 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Ramjibaba Nagar, Morshi,
District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Panchawati, Amravati, through
its Secretary Shri V.G. Bhamburkar.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:37 :::
wp1915.15 5
Shri V.V. & R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. M.S. Rane, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2015
Ku. Renuka d/o Dagdu Solonke
@ Sau. Renuka w/o Ananta Mawal,
aged about 34 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
Satgaon, Bhusari, Tq. Chikhali,
District - Buldana. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Division No. 2, Akola,
District - Akola, through its
Member Secretary.
2. Shivaji Education Society,
Amravati Tq. & District - Amravati
through its Secretary.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldana. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1932 OF 2015
Ku. Sunita d/o Shriram Ambedare,
aged about 35 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
c/o Arvind Shridhar Borkar,
Arni Road, Kavita Nagar, Darwha,
Tah. Darwha, District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:37 :::
wp1915.15 6
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secondary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Shri Shivaji Education Society at
Amravati, through its Secretary
having its office at Amravati,
Tahsil & District - Amravati ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent No. 1.
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard the respective counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have joined the employment initially
as reserved category candidates as belonging to Scheduled
Tribe after coming into force of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste
Certificates Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001). The
management has on 27.03.2015 issued them a show cause
notice and asked them to produce validity as belonging to
Scheduled Tribe.
3. The petitioners submit that voluntarily they gave up
their claim as the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe
category and opted to be treated as Special Backward Class
(S.B.C.) candidates, got caste certificate accordingly and that
caste certificate has also been verified and validated by the
Scrutiny Committee. Their status as belonging to Special
Backward Class was also recognized by the employer and their
employment has been protected. Accordingly, roster has also
been modified. The petitioners, in this situation submit that
final intimation given to them on 27.03.2015 calling them to
submit validity certificate as belonging to Scheduled Tribe
candidates is arbitrary and unsustainable. They submit that
they have been absorbed as S.B.C. candidates since the year
2006 and have put in about 10 years of service. After 2006,
advertisement and have been issued to fill in the vacancies in
S.B.C. categories. The petitioners state that had their status as
belonging to S.B.C. not been given to them and their services
were not protected, they would have an opportunity to apply in
pursuance to any such advertisement and to compete and get
selected as S.B.C. category candidates. Because of treatment
extended to them as S.B.C. candidates and protection given by
their employer, they have lost said opportunity. The contention
is, therefore, the demand of Scheduled Tribe caste validity at
this stage is barred and their employer as also other
respondents are estopped from asking the said certificate in the
matter.
4. Shri P.B. Patil and Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel
appearing for the respective employers and AGP for the State
Government authority, are opposing the petitions.
5. Shri P.B. Patil and Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel
submit that the rosters have been duly verified by the General
Administrative Department (G.A.D.) which thereafter wanted to
review that position. The review has been necessitated because
of protection extended to the petitioners as S.B.C. category
candidates. He contends that as the petitioners have produced
validity as belonging to S.B.C., their services have been rightly
protected by the employer. This action and approval thereto
given by the department cannot now be reviewed.
6. The respective learned Assistant Government
Pleaders, on the other hand, submit that the protection can be
given to only those whose claims are found to be bonafide. If
while obtaining caste certificate or for procuring employment, if
any fraud has been practised or then documents are found to be
interpolated, the benefit of protection cannot be given. The
learned AGPs rely upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (FB), to substantiate this contention.
7. During arguments, the respective counsel for the
petitioners have also attempted to draw our attention to
discrimination. They have submitted that some of them who
have entered into service as Scheduled Tribe candidates have
been protected by accepting their claim as belonging to S.B.C.
candidates and validities submitted have been accepted and no
such final intimation is issued to them.
8. The respective counsel for the employer have
submitted that because of distinguishing features in their cases,
the final intimation could not have been issued to those
candidates. There is no discrimination.
9. In the challenge, as raised by the petitioners, we do
not find it necessary to find out whether Respondent No. 1 -
employer has discriminated amongst the employees. If there
are employees who have entered after 18.10.2001 i.e. after
coming into force of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates
Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act No. 23 of
2001), on the strength of Scheduled Tribe certificates and they
have been given protection by the employer as candidates
belonging to S.B.C., the matter can be looked into by
Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer, in accordance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001, as also Full
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath
Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra).
10. The judgment of Full Bench mentioned supra is very
clear. The benefit of protection of employment can be given
only if the candidate has entered into the employment before
coming into force of the Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001, and
his claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe is found to be honest
one i.e. he has not been found guilty of playing any fraud or
interpolation by the Scrutiny Committee during verification.
Thus, the benefit of protection cannot be extended without
invalidation of his caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. Neither the employer nor Respondent No. 2 -
Education Officer or any other officer can grant protection to
employee, if caste claim is not verified by the Scrutiny
Committee.
12. When the petitioners have entered into employment
somewhere in the year 2003, the legal position was clear.
Hence, without prejudice to other contentions raised by the
petitioners in the matters, they must submit their initial caste
certificate on the basis of which they claimed and procured the
job. We hold that the petitioners have to submit their caste
certificate as belonging to Scheduled Tribe for verification to
the Competent Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee
has to undertake exercise of verification and complete it in
accordance with the Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001, only to
find out whether any fraud was played or documents submitted
by them were interpolated. The other contentions of the
petitioners, particularly their request for protection in
employment though they entered employment after
18.10.2001, claim for parity or then estoppal against the
employer because of their long continuation, are kept open.
Similarly, the contention that the petitioners could not apply
for their selection against S.B.C. category post after 2006, as
they were given protection by the employer is also kept open.
Subject to orders of Scrutiny Committee, the said contentions
can be looked into and evaluated at appropriate juncture.
13. Accordingly, we permit all the petitioners to submit
necessary documents to their employer for forwarding to the
competent Scrutiny Committee within a period of four weeks
from today. They shall also declare on oath names of their
children who have on the strength of their caste certificate
claimed or enjoyed the Scheduled Tribe status. If such
documents are submitted, the employer shall forward the same
to the Scrutiny Committee within a further period of four
weeks. The Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to undertake
verification as mentioned supra and complete it within a
further period of one year.
14. Respondents shall proceed as per law against such
of the petitioners, who shall not submit their caste claim and
documents for verification as directed above.
15. If the orders of Scrutiny Committee are adverse to
the petitioners, their services shall not be terminated for a
period of six weeks thereafter.
16. The petitioners are given liberty to challenge those
adverse orders and also to raise all contentions noted supra or
such other contentions as are available to them in law then.
17.
With these directions and observations, we dispose
of the present writ petitions. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
