Niranjan Vishwanath Nalewad vs The State Of Maharahtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 368 Bom

                                          1




                                                                              
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

                            NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.




                                                      
                         WRIT PETITION No. 5108 OF 2014




                                                     
    Niranjan Vishwanath Nalewad
    aged 42 years, Occ.: Student,
    r/o Brahmangaon, Tq. Umred,
    District Yavatmal.                           ....    PETITIONER.




                                             
                 -VERSUS -

    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       through its Secretary,
                                
       Education & Sports Department,
                               
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

    2. Yuvak Mandal, Pusad,
       through its President/Secretary.
       Pusad.
      


    3. Head Master,
   



       Swami Punse Guruji Vidyalaya,
       Dhanki, Tq. Umarkhed,
       Distt. Yavatmal.

    4. Education Officer (Secondary),





       Z.P. Yavatmal.

    5. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
       through its Chairman,
       Camp, Amravati.                            .... RESPONDENTS.





                              ....
    Mr. P.S. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner.
    Mr. S.M. Ukey, AGP, for respondents 1 and 2.
    Mr. M.R. Pillai Advocate for Respondent no. 3.
                                 ....




       ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:12 :::
                                                2




                                                                                        
                     CORAM : Smt. V.A. Naik & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

DATED : 07th March, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. V.A. Naik, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

Bench decision of this Court

respondent no. 3 to protect his service as a Junior Clerk in view of the Full

reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun

Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra & ors.).

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk by the

respondent no. 3 on 23.7.1995 on a post earmarked for the Scheduled

Tribes. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Mannewar- Scheduled

Tribe. It is the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner worked with

the respondent no. 4 for more than 17 years, the respondent no. 3

terminated his services on 27.8.2012 as he had failed to produce the

Caste Validity Certificate. According to the petitioner, the

respondent/management had never asked the petitioner to furnish the

Caste Certificate and the other documents for referring the same to the

Scrutiny Committee for verification. It is stated that in the absence of any

such direction, the petitioner had not tendered the Caste Certificate to the

respondent no. 3. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, a

direction may be issued to the respondent no. 3 to reinstate the petitioner

in service and refer his caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee for

verification, as the post of Junior Clerk is still vacant in the school run by

respondent no. 3.

4. Shri Pillai, the learned counsel for respondent no.3, fairly

states, on instructions, that the respondent no. 3 had never demanded the

Caste Certificate and the other documents from the petitioner. It is further

stated that a post of Junior Clerk is still vacant in the school run by the

respondent no. 3. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, an

appropriate direction may be issued. It is stated that if this Court is

inclined to direct the reinstatement of the petitioner, there should be no

direction for payment of arrears of the salary for the period during which

the petitioner was out of service.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that

in the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to direct the

respondent no. 3 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk

within a time frame. The respondent no. 3 had never demanded the Caste

Certificate from the petitioner and had never referred the Caste Claim of

the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee. The respondent no. 3 could not

have terminated the services of the petitioner when the petitioner has

worked for more than 17 years in the school run by respondent no. 3.

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

allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in

service with continuity of service. The petitioner would not be entitled to

back wages- arrears of salary for the period during which he was out of

service. The petitioner is directed to submit the Caste Certificate and the

other relevant documents to the respondent no. 3 within a period of six

weeks. The respondent no. 3 is directed to remit the said papers to the

respondent no. 5- Scrutiny Committee within a period of two weeks for

verification of the caste claim of the petitioner. The respondent no. 5-

Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner

as early as possible, and positively within a period of 15 months from the

date of the receipt of the same by the Scrutiny Committee. The

respondent no. 3 is free to take appropriate action against the petitioner if

the petitioner fails to submit the Caste Certificate and the other relevant

documents to it in the proper format within a period of six weeks.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                       JUDGE

     /TA/