Bombay High Court
Ku. Priti Arunrao Tidke vs Shri. Shivaji Education Society, ... on 23 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP6384.16 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6384 OF 2016
Ku. Priti Arunrao Tidke,
Aged about 39 years,
Occupation-General Mechanic
with Shri Shivaji Education Society's
Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Polytechnic,
Shivaji Nagar, Amravati, resident of
16-A, Triveni Colony, Congress Nagar
Road, Amravati (Maharashtra State). .. Petitioner
1]
ig .. Versus ..
Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Through its President, Amravati
(Maharashtra State).
2] Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Polytechnic,
Amravati, Through its Principal,
(Maharashtra State).
3) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati, through its
Assistant Commissioner (Maharashtra
State). .. Respondents
..........
Shri Nitin Autkar, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2,
Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 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 on the post of General Mechanic 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 General Mechanic in the
respondent no.1-education society on 27.8.1996, on a post earmarked 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 by the order dated 26.9.2016. The Scrutiny Committee
observed that the petitioner belongs to Dhangar caste and the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe, was false.
Shri Autkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the
petitioner's services need to be protected in view of the full bench judgment, as
the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date on 27.8.1996 and though
there is an observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner has secured the caste certificate by suppression of material facts and
documents, the said observation would not come in the way of the petitioner
while seeking the protection, as the petitioner was a minor, when the caste
certificate was secured in the name of the petitioner by his parents. It is
submitted that the issue like the one involved in this case came up for
consideration in the case of Alka d/o Prabhakarrao Mahure .vs. Joint Director
and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur and others and this Court has, by the judgment reported in 2015 (4)
Mh.L.J. 251 held that it cannot be said that a candidate would be involved in
playing fraud or falsely claiming a caste certificate, when the caste certificate is
issued when the candidate was a minor and the same is secured by his/her
parents or guardian. It is stated that since there is no observation in the order
of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had manipulated the documents
or had interpolated the same, the direction to the respondent no.1 to protect
the services of the petitioner would be necessary.
Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 and Shri Sambre, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, do not dispute the
position of law as laid down by the full bench. It is fairly admitted that this
Court has held in the judgment reported in 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 251 that the
petitioner in that case had not fraudulently secured the caste certificate, as the
said certificate was secured when the petitioner therein was a minor, by his
parent or guardian. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the
year 1996.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
services of the petitioner need to be protected in view of the judgment of the
full bench and the judgment reported in 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 251. Admittedly,
the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1996 and there
is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner
had interpolated or fabricated the documents with a view to secure the
benefits meant for the Dhanwar, Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the caste
claim of the petitioner invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same
on the basis of the documents and the affinity test. The observation of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the caste
certificate of Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe though she belongs to Dhangar caste is
not correct, as the petitioner was a minor when the caste certificate of the
petitioner was secured by her parent or guardian in the year 1982. Since we
do not find that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for
the Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe and since the petitioner was appointed before
the cut off date, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to protect the services of the petitioner on
the post of General Mechanic, only on the condition that the petitioner
furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos.1 and 2
within four weeks that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for
the Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
