Ku. Rekha Kattiya Marshettiwar, ... vs Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 626 Bom

     WP682.16 [J].odt                              1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                               WRIT PETITION NO.682 OF 2016




                                                       
     Ku. Rekha Kattiya Marshettiwar,
     (after marriage Sau. Rekha Ganesh Gandhewar),




                                                      
     Aged about 50 years,
     Occupation - Assistant Teacher in 
     Corporation School, Kapil Nagar,  
     R/o.  Corporation School,
     Kapil Nagar, Zingabai Takli, Nagpur.    ..                        Petitioner




                                              
                              ig    .. Versus ..

     1]     Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee,
            through its Member Secretary, 
                            
            Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth,
            Nagpur.

     2]     Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
      

            through its Commissioner,
            Civil Lines, Nagpur.
   



     3]     The Education Officer (Primary)
            O/o. Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
            Civil Lines, Nagpur.               ..                      Respondents





                            ..........
     Shri R.S. Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner,
     Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1,
     Ms. Shilpa P. Giratkar, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.





                            ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK  AND
                                             V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 15, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

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

Though by this writ petition the petitioner had initially

challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee and had sought the

direction for protection of her services in view of the judgment of the full

bench, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

has given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and

she only seeks the protection of her services. We permit the petitioner

to delete the prayer clause (1). The amendment should be carried out

forthwith.

The petitioner claimed to belong to Chhatri, Scheduled Tribe

and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school run by

the respondent nos.2 and 3 on 2.11.1993, on the post earmarked for the

Scheduled Tribes. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the

Scrutiny Committee for verification. By the order dated 23.12.2015,

the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

The petitioner is not desirous of challenging the order of the Scrutiny

Committee and she only seeks the protection of her services in view of

the judgment of the full bench.

Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the services of the petitioner are liable to be protected in view of the

judgment of the full bench, inasmuch as, the petitioner was appointed

before the cut off date in the year 1993 and there is no observation in

the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently

secured the benefits meant for the Scheduled Tribes by fabricating the

documents. It is stated that both the conditions, that are required to be

satisfied for seeking the protection of the services, stand satisfied in the

case of the petitioner.

Shri Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Ms. Shilpa Giratkar, the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 do

not dispute the position of law, as laid down by the full bench in the

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

.vs. State of Maharashtra and others). It is admitted that the petitioner

was appointed before the cut off date and that there is no observation in

the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently

secured the benefits meant for the Chhatri, Scheduled Tribe. It is stated

that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the

case.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the judgment of the

full bench, it appears that the services of the petitioner are liable to be

protected. The petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the

year 1993 and there is no observation against the petitioner in the order

of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of fraud. As rightly submitted on

behalf of the petitioner, both the conditions that are required to be

satisfied while granting the protection of services, are satisfied in the

case of the petitioner.

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

The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of the

petitioner on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking

in this court and to the respondent nos.2 and 3 within a period of four

weeks that the petitioner would not claim the benefits, meant for the

Chhatri, Scheduled Tribe, in future.

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

to costs.

                              JUDGE                                          JUDGE





     Gulande