Bombay High Court
Vijaysing Bharatsing Patil vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.254/16
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.254 OF 2016.
Vijaysing S/o Bharatsing Patil,
Age 23 years, Occ.Service,
R/o at post Javkhede (Kh.),
Tq.Erandol, Dist.Jalgaon.
ig ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.2, Dhule, Tq and Dist.
Dhule.
2. The Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution
Co. Ltd., through its
Chief Engineer, Jalgaon
Division, Jalgaon.
3. The Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution
Co. Ltd. Through its
Executive Engineer,
Old Power House, Near
Railway Gate, Dharangaon,
Dist.Jalgaon.
4. The Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution
Co.Ltd., through
its Assistant Engineer/
Junior Engineer, Erandol,
Tq.Erandol, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondents.
...
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:20:38 :::
2 W.P.No.254/16
Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Patil, A.G.P for the State.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.
Date : 09.03.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Leave to amend.
3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
4. The validation proceedings in respect
of the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging
to 'Rajput Bhamta'(Vimukta Jati) has been
rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present
petition.
5. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the proceedings have been
decided by the Committee exparte. The petitioner
had filed an application a day in advance for
adjourning the matter. The same was not
considered and the Committee proceeded to pass
the judgment. The reason for adjournment was
genuine reason. The father of the petitioner had
died and on that count the adjournment was
sought. It was not intention of the petitioner
to prolong the proceedings.
ig Naturally, when the
petitioner was absent, he could not bring it to
the notice of the Committee various documents and
put forth his contention. The learned counsel
submits that an opportunity be given to the
petitioner to put forth his contentions on merits
before the Committee.
6. Mr.Patil, learned A.G.P states that
ample opportunity was given to the petitioner.
Time to time the matter was adjourned. The
petitioner use to inward adjournment application
and go away. Inspite of ample opportunities
given, the petitioner did not put forth his case.
The Committee on the basis of available document
rightly rejected the claim. There are contra
evidence on record.
7. Mr.Patil, learned counsel states that
on 8.1.2016, this Court had issued notice and had
restrained the Respondents from taking any
coercive action against the petitioner. However,
on the very same day, the Respondents terminated
the service of the petitioner. The said
termination order be set aside.
8. Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner
was appointed from the reserved category. Upon
invalidation of his caste claim, the action has
been rightly taken by the Respondents.
9. We have considered the submissions and
the record. The judgment is an exparte judgment.
Lastly the matter was fixed for hearing on
27.10.2015. On 26.10.2016, the petitioner had
filed an application for adjournment. According
to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner
had died on 24.10.2015 i.e. three days prior to
the date of hearing. Naturally, on 27.10.2015,
the petitioner can not be expected to remain
present for hearing. In normal course for the
reason for which the adjournment was sought on
27.10.2015 we would have considered the case of
the petitioner and remitted it back without
imposing any cost on the petitioner. However, it
would appear that on three occasions earlier, the
petitioner use to inward his application seeking
adjournment a day prior to the date of hearing
and never use to attend hearing. No explanation
is coming forth for the same. The matter was
adjourned on 1.9.2015, 16.9.2015. Earlier to
that it was on 20.8.2015. No plausible reasons
are given for not remaining present on the said
dates.
10. Considering the fact that the matter is
regarding the social status of the petitioner and
the reason for adjournment on 27.10.2015 was a
genuine reason, we are inclined to grant one more
opportunity to the petitioner, however,
petitioner deserves to be mulct with cost for his
consistent absence on earlier occasions. The
petitioner is working as a helper and is
terminated during the pendency of the present
Petition. As the order of the Committee is being
set aside, we also set aside the order of
termination and pass the following order :
a) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the
Committee invalidating the caste claim of the
petitioner is set aside on payment of cost of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be
paid to Respondent No.1 Committee on or before
30.3.2016.
b) The parties are relegated before the
Committee for deciding the validation proceedings
afresh. The petitioner shall appear before the
Committee on 30.3.2016. The Committee on hearing
the petitioner shall decide the said proceedings
expeditiously.
c) The order of termination dated 8.1.2016
issued by Respondent No.3 is quashed and set
aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in
service but will not be entitled for back wages
from 8.1.2016 till the date of reinstatement
which shall be on or before 15.3.2016, however,
will be entitled for continuity. The Respondent
Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to take further course of
action against the petitioner in tune with the
judgment of the Committee in the validation
proceedings.
d) Rule accordingly made partly absolute.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp254.16
