Shila W/O Harish Mukalwar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1055 Bom

                                                    1




                                                                                         
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                 
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                                
    Writ Petition No. 35 of 2016



    Petitioner             :        Shila w/o Harish Mukalwar (Ku Shila d/o




                                                    
                                    Ramkrushna Todape), aged about 52 years,
                                    Occ: service,  resident of 39, Suraj Society, 
                                    
                                    Near Vaidya Convent, Somalwada, Manish
                                    Nagar, Nagpur

                                    versus
                                   
    Respondents            :        1)   State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,

Ministry of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur,

through its Vice-Chairman.

3) The Tahsildar, Nagpur (Gramin), Nagpur

4) The Collector, Nagpur

Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Joshi, Advocate for petitioner

Shri Neeraj Patil, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents

Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 31st March 2016

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of her services in

view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457 (Arun

Vishwanath Sonone versus State of Maharashtra & ors) as the petitioner has given up

her claim of belonging to the "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe.

3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the Office of

Collector, Yavatmal on 22.9.1981 that was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Since

the petitioner claimed to belong to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe, the caste claim of the

petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The caste claim of

the petitioner was invalidated by the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated

30.12.1997. Though the fact in regard to the invalidation of the caste claim of the

petitioner was brought to the notice of the Collector, no action was taken against the

petitioner till a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to terminate

her service, on 23.1.2015. Since the petitioner has given up the claim of belonging to

"Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe and since there is no observation in the order of the

Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant

for the scheduled tribes, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the

protection of her services.

4. Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied in view of

the Full Bench judgment while seeking the protection of service, are satisfied in the

case of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off

date, on 22.9.1981 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee

that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Mannewar

Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalided by

the Scrutiny Committee as she was unable to prove the same on the basis of

documents and the affinity test. It is stated that the respondents may be directed to

protect the services of the petitioner.

5. Shri Neeraj Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents does not dispute that the petitioner is appointed before the cut-off

date and that there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the

petitioner had secured the benefit meant for Mannewar Scheduled Tribes

fraudulently. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the matter.

6. It appears, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee as also the judgment of the Full Bench,

that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. Admittedly, the

petitioner is appointed before the cut-off date, on 22.9.1981 and there is no

observation in the order of the Scrutiny committee that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe. Both

the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of the

services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457

(Arun Vishwanath Sonone versus State of Maharashtra & ors) are satisfied in the case

of the petitioner.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The

respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 are directed to protect the services of the petitioner as a

Junior Clerk on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this

Court and to the respondent no. 4 within a period of four weeks that neither the

petitioner nor her progeny would seek the benefits meant for the "Mannewar"

Scheduled Tribe, in future.

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

            V. M. DESHPANDE, J                                SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J



    joshi