Rangnath S/O Chandrasen Patil vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6595 Bom

     WP4161.16 [J].odt                              1




                                                                                    
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO.4161 OF 2016

     Rangnath s/o Chandrasen Patil,




                                                           
     Age 43, Occupation-Nil,
     R/o. Post-Nandrahaveli,
     Tah. Jamner, District-Jalgaon.                          ..             Petitioner




                                                  
                                    .. Versus ..

     1]                      
            Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
            Tahsil-District-Buldhana.
                            
     2]     Scheduled Tribe Certificate
            Scrutiny Committee Division,
            Nandurbar, through its Chairman,
            R/o. Sakri Road, Near RTO Office,
      

            Nandurbar, Tah-Distt.Nandurbar.                  ..             Respondents

                             ..........
   



     Shri M.V. Bute, counsel for the petitioner,
     Shri S.M. Uike, counsel for respondent no.1,
     Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent no.2.
                             ..........





                                    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 a direction against the

respondent - Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant

Teacher after setting aside the order of termination, dated 10.7.2008. 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 an Assistant Teacher on a post

earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes on 13.2.1996. The caste claim of the

petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. Since the

petitioner did not produce the caste validity certificate, the respondent

terminated the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.7.2008. In view

of the judgment of the full bench, the petitioner has sought the protection of

his services as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996, i.e. before the cut

off date and in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 24.5.2016, there is

no observation that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant

for the Koli Mahdeo Scheduled Tribe.

Shri Uike, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Zilla

Parishad, does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the full bench.

It is further 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 had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Mahadeo

Koli Scheduled Tribe. It is stated on instructions that some posts of Assistant

Teachers are still vacant in Buldhana Zilla Parishad.

It is clear from the statements recorded herein-above 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 had fraudulently

secured the benefits meant for the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. Since the

petitioner had worked for more than 12 years before his services were

terminated for not producing the caste validity certificate and since 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, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected by

directing the respondent - Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner in service

and protect his services.

On a reading of the judgment of the full bench and the order of the

Scrutiny Committee, we allow the writ petition. The respondent-Zilla Parishad

is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher on the

condition that the petitioner submits an undertaking in this Court and before

the respondent-Zilla Parishad within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor

his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled

Tribe, in future. We direct the respondent - Zilla Parishad to reinstate the

petitioner in service within 10 days from the date of submission of the

undertaking. Though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement and

continuity of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to back-wages and

other monetary benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement, for the

period during which the petitioner was out of service.

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

costs.

                                      JUDGE                                      JUDGE

     Gulande, PA