Bombay High Court
Ramesh Wamanrao Wankhade vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1835.16-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Ramesh Wamanrao Wankhade, Occupation
Agriculture Assistant, Dr. Panjabrao
Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola,
R/o Malkapur, Akola.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi
Vidyapeeth, Akola through its
Registrar, Krishi Nagar, Akola.
2) The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its
Member Secretary, Ervin
Chowk, Amravati
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.J. Dhoble, Adv. h/f Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Counsel for
the Petitioner.
Mr.Abhay Sambre, Counsel for the R-1.
Mr.P.V. Bhoyar, AGP for the R-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 30, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
wp1835.16-Judgment 2/5
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
proposed termination served on the petitioner by the respondent
No.1-University for not producing the caste validity certificate despite
being appointed on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The
petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee
to decide the caste claim of the petitioner at the earliest. The petitioner
seeks the protection of his service, till his caste claim is decided.
The petitioner was appointed as an Agricultural Assistant
by the respondent No.1 on 4.10.1989, on the post earmarked for the
Scheduled Tribes. Since the petitioner was appointed on the basis of his
claim of belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, the respondent
No.1-University referred the caste claim of the petitioner to the
respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny
Committee returned the proposal of the petitioner to the respondent
No.1-University on 20.1.2014 as the original caste certificate was not
tendered. It is the case of the petitioner that the original caste
certificate is lost and in this background, the petitioner may be granted
permission to produce the certified copy of the caste certificate or a
wp1835.16-Judgment 3/5
duplicate caste certificate that could be secured from the competent
authority to the Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, the
petitioner is not at fault in not producing the caste validity certificate
and this Court may, therefore, protect the services of the petitioner, till
his caste claim is decided.
Shri P.V. Bhoyar, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee states, on
instructions, that the caste claim of the petitioner was returned to the
respondent No.1-University as there were certain deficiencies in the
application made by the petitioner. It is stated that the application of
the petitioner was not accompanied by the original caste certificate. It
is stated that if the petitioner submits the duplicate caste certificate or
the certified copy of the caste certificate to the respondent
No.2-Scrutiny Committee in proper form along with the other necessary
documents, the Scrutiny Committee would decide the caste claim of the
petitioner as early as possible.
In view of the statements recorded herein above and in the
circumstances of the case, it is necessary to grant an opportunity to the
petitioner to submit the caste claim in the proper form along with the
wp1835.16-Judgment 4/5
duplicate caste certificate and/or the certified copy of the caste
certificate and the other documents to the respondent No.1-University
within a period of one month so that the respondent No.1 could remit
the caste claim of the petitioner to the respondent No.2-Scrutiny
Committee for verification.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned
order of termination is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is
permitted to submit the caste claim in the proper form along with the
duplicate caste certificate or the certified copy of the caste certificate
and the other necessary documents to the respondent No.1-University
within a period of one month. The respondent No.1, in turn, is directed
to submit the caste claim of the petitioner to the respondent No.2-
Scrutiny Committee for verification, within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of the same. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to
decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and
positively within a period of fifteen months from the date of receipt of
the caste claim. The respondent No.1-University is directed to protect
the services of the petitioner, till the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner fails to submit
the application in the proper form to the respondent No.1-University
wp1835.16-Judgment 5/5
along with the necessary documents within a period of one month, the
respondent No.1 is free to take appropriate action against the
petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
