Ku. Jyoti D/O. Tikadas Ninawe ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6511 Bom

     WP2075.16 [J].odt                               1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                       
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                           
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.2075 OF 2016

     Ku. Jyoti d/o Tikadas Ninawe,
     Allies Jyoti w/o Manoj Hedaoo,
     Aged.... years, Occupation-Service,




                                                          
     R/o. Plot No.565, Neharu Nagar,
     Nandanwan, Near Sangam Theater,
     Nagpur-440009.                                             ..             Petitioner




                                                   
                                     .. Versus ..

     1]
                               
                   State of Maharashtra,
                   Through its Principal Secretary,
                   Tribal Development Department,
                   Mantralay Extension, Madam Kama
                              
                   Road, Mumbai-400032.

     2]            The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny,
                   Committee, Gadchiroli,
                   through its Member Secretary,
      


                   Complex Area, Gadchiroli-442605.
   



     3]            Girish Sarode (Deleted)
     4]            Dinesh Bakaram Tidke (Deleted)
     5]            Manoj Bhimrao Chavhan (Deleted)





     6]            Chanda Magar (Deleted)
     7]            Principal,
                   Vidarbha Buniyadi High School and
                   Junior College, Omnagar, Sakkardara,





                   Umred Road, Nagpur-440009.                   ..             Respondents

                             ..........
     Shri T. Rahul, Advocate for the petitioner,
     Mrs. G.R. Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                             ..........

                                     CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK  AND
                                              MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the

respective parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the invalidation order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and prays to quash and set aside the impugned

order, dated 4.3.2016 issued by the respondent no.2.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Junior

College under respondent no.7 with effect from 25.9.1996. The petitioner has

secured her caste certificate of 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe community from the

Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur. The proposal for verification of caste

certificate of the petitioner was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by

order dated 4.3.2016 on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit

necessary documents before the Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated

period.

Shri T. Rahul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently

argued that the petitioner was in extreme difficulty at the relevant time,

therefore, she required more time to obtain the relevant documents to produce

before the Scrutiny Committee, but she was not given opportunity to tender

those documents and therefore, she could not prove her caste before the

Scrutiny Committee. He further urged that as the petitioner's services will be

affected for want of caste validity certificate, her case be considered

sympathetically. The learned counsel seeks a remand of the matter to the

Scrutiny Committee so as to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to tender

the documents which could not be secured at the relevant time.

Mrs. G.R. Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent nos.1 and 2, contended that though sufficient time was given to

the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, she remained absent before

the Scrutiny Committee, hence no leniency be shown to the petitioner.

After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record, it is

observed that the petitioner is found to be somewhat lethargic in prosecuting

the matter in respect of her caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee. We,

however, take a sympathetic view, as the petitioner is in service and her caste

claim is not decided on merits by the Scrutiny Committee. In our considered

view, one opportunity can be given to the petitioner to prove her caste claim

before the Scrutiny Committee in the interest of justice and in view of peculiar

facts and circumstances. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :

The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated

4.3.2016 issued by the respondent no.2 is hereby set aside. The Scrutiny

Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner afresh by

giving her opportunity to tender the relevant documents. The petitioner to

appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20.12.2016. The Scrutiny

Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 18 months

thereafter. The services of the petitioner are protected till her caste claim is

decided.

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

costs.

                                      JUDGE                                       JUDGE
     Gulande, PA