Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O. Wasudeo ... vs Vice-Chairman And Jonit ... on 2 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp521.16.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 521 OF 2016
Chandrashekhar s/o Wasudeo Dalal
aged about 42 yrs., Occp. Service,
r/o Jogithanapeth, Itwari Main road,
Umrer, Distt. Nagpur. :: PETITIONER
.. Versus
..
1. Vice-Chairman and Joint Commissioner,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. General Manager,
Regional Office, 3rd Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Public Garden Road,
Hyderabad - 500004.
3. Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
District Office - Warangal
(Telangana). :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mehroz Pathan, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri S. R. De shpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 02 MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
wp521.16.odt 2/3
2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved
by the order dated 21/01/2016, thereby respondent No.1-Committee
has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner, however, has given up his claim with regard
to challenge the order disputing his caste invalidation and has now
restricted his claim in the present petition only for protecting his
service.
4.
The petitioner, claiming to be belonging "Halba-Scheduled
Tribe", came to be appointed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the year
1997. Since the petitioner claimed to be belonging Scheduled Tribe,
his caste claim was referred to respondent No.1-Committee for
scrutiny. The Committee has found that the petitioner belongs to
"Halba-Koshti" and not "Halba-Scheduled Tribe".
5. Be that as it may. The Larger Bench of this Court in the
case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others - 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 has held that all such persons, who
have been appointed in service long back, would be entitled to
protection of their services on the ground of length of service.
However, it has been held that in case, if there is finding of practicing
fraud while securing employment, such employee would not be
entitled to get the benefit of said protection.
wp521.16.odt 3/3
6. Undisputedly, a perusal of the impugned order would
reveal that there is no finding of fraud recorded by respondent No.1-
Committee. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of protection in view of the law laid down in the
case of Arun Sonone (supra).
7. In the result, rule is made absolute by directing respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 to protect the services of the petitioner. However, it is
made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any of
the benefits as are available to the candidates belonging to Scheduled
Tribe category. Even, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the
promotion, if any, granted to the petitioner considering him to be
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
JUDGE JUDGE
wwl
