Bombay High Court
Baban S/O Gangaram Brahman vs Zilla Parishad, Washim Through ... on 21 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP6216.16 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6216 OF 2016
Baban s/o Gangaram Brahman,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Service (now terminated),
R/o. At Dhoni Post Palodi,
Tah. Manora and District-Washim. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1]
Zilla Parishad, Washim through its
Chief Executive Officer,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
2] Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim. .. Respondents
..........
Shri V.B. Bhise, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Amol S. Deshpande, counsel for the respondents.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , 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
parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his
services in view of the judgment of the full bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.
457 (Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others).
The petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher in the
respondent-Zilla Parishad on 6.10.1992, on a post reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of
the petitioner of belonging to Naikada Scheduled Tribe on 28.9.2016. The
petitioner has given up his caste claim and is only seeking the protection of his
services in view of the judgment of the full bench.
Shri Bhise, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that both
the conditions that are required to be satisfied, while seeking the protection of
services, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was
appointed before the cut off date on 6.10.1992 and there is no observation in
the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Naikada Scheduled Tribe.
Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent-Zilla
Parishad does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the full bench.
It is also not disputed that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date
and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Naikada
Scheduled Tribe.
It appears from a reading of the judgment of the full bench and the
order of the Scrutiny Committee that the services of the petitioner are required
to be protected. As rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner, both the
conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of the
services in view of the judgment of the full bench stand satisfied in the case of
the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was appointed before the cut off
date in the year 1992 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for
the Naikada Scheduled Tribe.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondent-Zilla Parishad is directed to protect the services of the petitioner as
a Primary Teacher, only on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an
undertaking in this Court and to the respondents-Zilla Parishad within four
weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits
meant for Naikada Schedule Tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
