Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Radhakisan Tapre vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp636.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.636/2016
PETITIONER: Vijay s/o Radhakisan Tapre
Age - 43, Occu. - Nil,
r/o Po-Thilori, Tq. Daryapur, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, Tq., Distt. Buldhana.
ig 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Division, Amravati, through its Chairman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.V. Bute, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl.G.P. for respondent no.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 21.03.2016
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 seeks a direction to the
respondent - Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service and
protect his services, in view of the full Bench judgment, reported in 2015
(1) Mh.L.J. 457.
wp636.16.odt
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher in Zilla Parishad, Buldhana after following the due procedure on
13.2.1996. Since the appointment of the petitioner was on a post
earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes and since the petitioner claimed to
belong to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe Caste, the caste claim of the
petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the
order, dated 13.8.2001. Since the respondent - Zilla Parishad did not
have the knowledge of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the
petitioner was continued in service till his services were terminated on
28.7.2008. After securing the knowledge about the order of the Scrutiny
Committee, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent - Zilla
Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service and protect his services as
the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date and there is no
observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner
had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the 'Koli Mahadeo'
Scheduled Tribe.
Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent
no.1 and Shri Ukey, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 do not dispute the position of
law as laid down by the full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
wp636.16.odt
The learned Counsel further admitted that the petitioner was appointed
before the cut off date in the year 1996 and there is no observation in the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe.
Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad
states that in case this Court is inclined to protect the services of the
petitioner, the petitioner should not be held to be entitled to the arrears
of salary for the period during which the petitioner was out of service.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted, in the
circumstances of the case. The petitioner was appointed as a Primary
Teacher before the cut off date on 13.2.1996 and there is no observation
in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled
Tribe. it appears that the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected as the
petitioner was not able to prove the same on the basis of the documents
and the affinity test. Since both the conditions that are required to be
satisfied while granting the protection of service, in view of the judgment
of the full Bench stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the relief
sought by the petitioner needs to be granted. It is rightly stated on behalf
of the Zilla Parishad that the petitioner should not be held to be entitled
wp636.16.odt
to the salary and the other monetary benefits for the period during which
he was out of service.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent - Zilla Parishad is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an
undertaking in this Court and before the Zilla Parishad that neither the
petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the 'Koli
Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent - Zilla Parishad
should reinstate the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of the undertaking. Though the petitioner would be entitled to
continuity of service on reinstatement, the petitioner would not be
entitled to the arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits that would
flow from the order of reinstatement.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
