Bombay High Court
Deepak S/O. Madhukar Shukla vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 18 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2016
Petitioner : Deepak son of Madhukar Shukla, aged about 43 years,
Occ: service, resident of Office of Inspector, Legal
metrology (Weights and Measures), Mehkar, District
Buldana
versus
Respondents : 1) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee for
Scheduled Tribes, Amravati Region, Amravati
2) The Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights and
Measures), Government of Maharashtra, Government
Barrack No. 7, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-21
3) Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights
and Measures), Amravati Division, amravati
4) Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights and
Measures), District Yavatmal
5) assistant Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights
and Measures), District Buldana
Shri V. B. Gawali, Advocate for petitioner
Shri Neeraj Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents
Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And
V. M. Deshpande, JJ
Dated : 18th March 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.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Assistant Controller
of legal Metrology (Weights and Meausres), Yavatmal dated 10.10.2012 and the other
consequential orders asking the petitioner to produce the caste validity certificate or else his
services would be terminated.
The petitioner was appointed as a peon in class-IV category by the respondent
no. 3 on 9.12.1991 on compassionate ground. The petitioner is presently working as a Field
Assistant in the office of Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weights and Measures), Mehkar,
District Buldana. The promotion of the petitioner to the post of Field Assistant was effected
on 23.4.1998. According to the petitioner, the initial appointment of the petitioner was on
compassionate ground and the petitioner is promoted as per his seniority and not on a post
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Since the petitioner is neither appointed on the post
earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes nor is the petitioner promoted as a Field Assistant on a
post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the
impugned order directing the petitioner to produce the caste validity certificate. It is stated
that the respondents were not justified in initiating a departmental enquiry against the
petitioner in view of his failure to produce the caste validity certificate when his appointment
and promotion are not based on his caste claim. It is stated that when an appointment is
made on compassionate ground, the Authorities are not entitled to demand a caste validity
certificate.
Shri Neeraj Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents does not dispute, on a perusal of the appointment order, that the
appointment of the petitioner is a compassionate appointment. It is fairly stated that when the
petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 on compassionate ground and when he was
promoted in the year 1998, there was no policy of the Government to consider appointment
on compassionate ground as per reservation. It is, however, stated that since the petitioner has
claimed to belong to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe and since the said fact is recorded in his
service record, the respondent had demanded the caste validity certificate and has initiated
departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondents
were not justified in initiating a departmental enquiry against the petitioer for not producing
the caste validity certificate. The respondents were also not justified in demanding a caste
validity certificate from the petitioner. Though the petitioner claims to belong to Mannewar
Scheduled Tribe, neither was the petitioner appointed on a post earmarked for the scheduled
tribes nor is he promoted on the post earmarked for the said category. The petitioner was
appointed in the year 1991 on compassionate ground. So also, the petitioner is promoted in
the year 1998 as per his seniority. It does not appear that there was any policy of the
Government in the year 1991 and 1998 to make appointments on compassionate ground after
following the reservation policy. In the absence of any policy to the aforesaid effect, it dannot
be said that the appointment of the petitioner is on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes.
The appointment of the petitioner, being on compassionate ground, the respondents could not
have demanded a caste validity certificate from the petitioner. The impugned orders cannot
be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders are quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
V. M. DESHPANDE, J
ig SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J
joshi
