Bombay High Court
Rajesh Manohar Darbeshwar vs The Chief Executive Officer, ... on 25 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.5480.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5480/2016
Rajesh Manohar Darbeshwar
Aged 46 years, occu: Assistant Engineer Grade II
Zilla Parishad, Minor Irrigation Division
Sub-Division Kuhi, R/o Beltarodi, Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Chief Executive officer
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
2) The Executive Engineer
(Rural& Water Supply Division)
Nagpur.
3) The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Through its Member-Secretary, Nagpur Division
Adiwasi Bhavan,
Giripeth Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.A.Sonak, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2
Shri A.M.Balpande, Asst. Government Pleader for Respondent No.3
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 25th November, 2016
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, 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.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to protect the services of the petitioner, in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench, in the case of Arun Sonone vs. State of
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:27:05 :::
wp.5480.16
2
Maharashtra.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as
a Junior Engineer on 31.12.1996 by the respondent no.1-Zilla Parishad. The
petitioner claimed to belong to 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of
the petitioner was referred to the respondent no.3-Scrutiny Committee for
verification. However, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of
the petitioner by the order dated 7.9.2016. The petitioner is simply seeking
the protection of his services, from the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.S.Parsodkar, contended
that the services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench in case of Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. Page 457. He submitted that as per the directions
in the said judgment, it is necessary that the petitioner is to be appointed
before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000 and there should be no observation
that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Chhatri'
Scheduled Tribe. Shri Parsodkar submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled
both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on 31.12.1996 and caste
claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, as the petitioner
could not prove the same on the basis of the documents required to prove that
he belongs to 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe as well as the affinity test.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri A.S. Sonak,
and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Amit Balpande, for
respondent no.3, do not dispute the settled position of law, as laid down in the
judgment of the Full Bench (supra). It is fairly admitted that in the order of
the Scrutiny Committee there is no observation that the petitioner had
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe.
6. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record and
the judgment of the Full Bench, it appears that the services of the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:27:05 :::
wp.5480.16
3
are required to be protected. The petitioner was admittedly appointed before
the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000. So also, there is no observation in the order of
the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for 'Chhatri' Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner
was invalidated as he could not prove the same on the basis of the documents
produced by him, before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has fulfilled
both the conditions that are required to be satisfied, while seeking the
protection of the services, as per the judgment of the Full Bench.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is
passed:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to protect the services of the
petitioner, on the post of Junior Engineer, on condition that the petitioner
should furnish an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos. 1
and 2 that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Chhatri'
Scheduled Tribe, in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
