Gajanan S/O Madhukar Aprukar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6688 Bom

    WP 5292/16                                        1                         Judgment


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                     
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 5292/2016




                                                            
    Gajanan s/o. Madhukar Aprukar,
    aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, 
    R/o. Kekatumre, Tah. Washim,
    District Washim.                                                        PETITIONER




                                                           
                                       .....VERSUS.....

    1.    State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          Tribal Welfare Department,




                                              
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
    2.    Chief Executive Officer,
                              
          Zilla Parishad, Washim.
    3.    Education Officer (Primary),
          Zilla Parishad, Washim.
                             
    4.    Block Education Officer,
          Panchayat Samiti, Washim.
    5.    Head Master,
          Zilla Parishad Primary School, Degaon,
      

          Zilla Parishad, Washim, District Washim.                            RESPONDENTS
   



                         Shri S.D. Chande, counsel for the petitioner.
          Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
                Shri Amol Deshpande, counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
                            None for the respondent nos.4 and 5.





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

                                                       TH     NOVEMBER,     2016.
                                           DATE     : 25

    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an

order dated 16.09.2016 and the respondents are duly served with the

notice.

WP 5292/16 2 Judgment

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks protection of his

services in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment

reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State

of Maharashtra & Others).

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the

respondent-Zilla Parishad on 25.07.1997, on a post earmarked for the

scheduled castes. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Mala Jangam

Scheduled Caste and during his employment, the petitioner gave up his

claim of belonging to Mala Jangam scheduled caste and claimed to

belong to Jangam caste which falls in the other backward classes. The

caste scrutiny committee validated the claim of the petitioner of

belonging to Jangam (other backward class) on 21.02.2014 and issued a

caste validity certificate in his favour. The petitioner tendered the caste

validity certificate to the Zilla Parishad but, the Zilla Parishad terminated

the services of the petitioner by two orders dated 27.07.2016 and

22.08.2016. The petitioner has challenged the said orders and has sought

the protection of his services.

4. Shri Chande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that

an identical issue like the one involved in this case was considered by this

Court in Writ Petition Nos.3729 of 2014, 3730 of 2014 and others, and

WP 5292/16 3 Judgment

this court has, by the judgment dated 12.02.2015, protected the services

of the petitioners therein, who had initially secured employment on the

posts reserved for the scheduled tribes but, had subsequently given up

their caste claim and had secured the validity certificates that they belong

to the Special Backward Classes. It is stated that this Court had held in

the said judgment that as per the judgment of the Full Bench, even if the

claim of the employee pertaining to the scheduled tribes is invalidated,

the employee is entitled to protection if there is no finding of fraud

against the employee. It is stated that since the issue involved in the writ

petitions decided by the judgment dated 12.02.2015 and this case is

identical, the services of the petitioner need to be protected, on parity.

5. Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no.1, does not dispute the position of law as

laid down by the judgment of the Full Bench as also the judgment

dated 12.02.2015 in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions. The learned

Assistant Government Pleader states that an appropriate order may be

passed in the circumstances of the case.

6. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2

and 3, has however, opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is stated

that protection cannot be granted to an employee who does not get his

WP 5292/16 4 Judgment

claim of belonging to a particular caste on the basis on which he secures

employment, verified from the caste scrutiny committee. It is stated that

in this case, the petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the

scheduled castes and the petitioner had secured the caste validity

certificate of belonging to the other backward classes. It is, however, not

disputed that by the judgment dated 12.02.2015 in the bunch of writ

petitions, this Court had protected the services of the employees that had

secured the employment on the posts earmarked for the scheduled tribes

after they secured the caste validity certificates that they belong to the

special backward classes.

7. On a reading of the judgment of the Full Bench and the

judgment dated 12.02.2015 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ

Petition Nos.3729 of 2014 and 3730 of 2014 and others, we find that the

services of the petitioner need to be protected. The petitioner was

admittedly appointed before the cut-off date in 1997 and there is no

observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Mala Jangam scheduled caste.

In almost identical set of facts, this court has, by the judgment dated

12.02.2015 in Writ Petition Nos.3729 of 2014 and 3730 of 2014 and

others, protected the services of all the employees in the said cases that

had secured the employment on the posts earmarked for the scheduled

WP 5292/16 5 Judgment

tribes but, had subsequently submitted the validity certificates that they

belong to special backward classes. In view of the said judgment, the

relief needs to be granted in favour of the petitioner, on parity.

8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons

recorded in the judgment dated 12.02.2015 in Writ Petition Nos.3729 of

2014 and 3730 of 2014 and others, we allow this writ petition. The

impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondent nos.2 and 3

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

within two weeks from the date of the tendering of the undertaking by

the petitioner in this court and to the respondent nos.2 and 3 that neither

the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Mala

Jangam Scheduled Caste, in future. Though the petitioner would be

entitled to the reinstatement in service with continuity, the petitioner

would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which he

was out of service.

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

to costs.

                  JUDGE                                           JUDGE


    APTE