Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 3445 Bom
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2016
wp5131.15.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5131 OF 2015
Sadhu s/o Mahadu Chivale
age 27 years, occ. Nil
r/o Borda, Tq. Gangakhed
Dist. Parbhani .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
General Administration Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2
The Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Ratnagiri Division, Ratnagiri
Dist. Ratnagiri
3 The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Aurangabad
Through its Dy. Director (R)
Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 28th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective
parties.
wp5131.15.doc
3. Petitioner has been selected for appointment to the post of conductor
in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ratnagiri Division,
Ratnagiri. Petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe category and
has been selected for the post of conductor against reserved vacancy.
Validation claim in respect of tribe certificate issued to the petitioner is
pending consideration with the Scrutiny Committee since 2014. However,
as a result of failure of petitioner to submit validation certificate,
appointment letter has not been issued by respondent no. 2 MSRTC. In
view of Government Resolution dated 12.12.2011, the employer ought to
have issued letter of appointment subject to decision in respect of validation
claim pending with the Scrutiny Committee.
4. In view of above, we direct respondent no. 2 - employer to issue letter
of appointment to petitioner making appointment to the post of conductor
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from
today. Appointment of petitioner shall be subject to outcome of the
validation proceeding pending with the Scrutiny Committee.
5. The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Ratnagiri Division has failed to
respondent to the notice issued by this Court. On second occasion notice
was re-issued to the concerned respondent by order dated 21.09.2015
warning him of the consequences of his failure to appear in the matter.
However, inspite of issuance of notice, concerned respondent has failed to
cause appearance in the matter inspite of warning. Considering this aspect,
respondent no. 2 is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in this Court
wp5131.15.doc
within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of amount same shall
be allotted to the account of High Court Legal Services Committee. Rule is
accordingly made absolute.
( K. L. WADANE ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!