Bombay High Court
Ganesh Shankarrao Bansod vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai ... on 17 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp5306.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5306/2005
Ganesh Shankarrao Bansod,
age 43 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o Akkewar Wadi, Nirman Nagar,
Chandrapur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Chairman, Committee for Scrutiny
& Verification of Tribes Claims,
Amravati.
3. Executive Magistrate,
Akola.
4. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.M. Kukday, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri S.C. Mehadia, counsel for respondent No.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 17.11.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Heard Shri A.M. Kukday, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S.Z.
Haider, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri S.C. Mehadia, counsel for
respondent No.4. None for the respondent No.3 though served.
2 wp5306.05
2. The petitioner though initially has challenged the order of Scrutiny
Committee invalidating his claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe the
petitioner is not pressing that claim and restricting his claim in the present
petition only for protection of the services rendered by him.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by respondent No.4
vide order dated 15th October, 1987 against a seat reserved for Scheduled
Tribe. Since the petitioner was appointed against the seat for Scheduled Tribe
his claim came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for considering its
validity. The respondent Committee vide order dated 6 th June, 2005 rejected
the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. After the
claim of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 22 nd September, 2005 the
petitioner came to be reverted to the post of Conductor from the post of Traffic
Controller. This Court while granting Rule on 12th December, 2005 had
granted interim protection in terms of prayer clause (d).
4. As such in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the
petitioner has continued in the service as Conductor and is likely to retire after
two years.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath
Sonone V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457
3 wp5306.05
has held that if a candidate has rendered substantial years of service and if
there is no finding of fraud in the order of Scrutiny Committee the services of
such a candidate are required to be protected. In that view of the matter, we
are inclined to allow the petition partly. The claim insofar as the challenge to
the order of Scrutiny Committee the same is rejected. However, the petitioner's
services as Conductor are protected. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no orders as to costs.
ig
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
