Bombay High Court
Ananta S/O Pundlik Theng vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 25 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.5391.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5391/2016
Ananta s/o Pundlik Theng,
Aged about 50 years, occu: service
R/o Shahu Nagar, WardNo.5
Chikhli, Tah. Chikhli,
Dist.Buldhana. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.2, Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola
Through its Chairman.
2) Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Chikhli, Tah. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana
Through its Secretary
3) Siddeshwar Vidyalaya,
Kolara, Tah. Chkhli
Dist. Buldana,
Through its Headmaster. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.H.Joshi, Asst. Government Pleader for Respondent No.1
............................................................................................................................
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 Petition,the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny
Committee dated 2.9.2016 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging
wp.5391.16
to 'Rajput Bhamta' (Vimukta Jati). The petitioner has further sought the
protection of his services, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the
case of Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra.
3. Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has given up his caste claim and the grievance of
the petitioner could be redressed if the services of the petitioner are protected,
in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457:
Arun Sonone vs.State of Maharashtra.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect
from 1.9.1992. The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' which is
recognised as a Vimukta Jati (A), by the State of Maharashtra and in the list
of De-notified Tribes. The caste claim of the petitioner was verified by the
Scrutiny Committee. It was however decided by the Scrutiny Committee that
the petitioner does not belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' caste. The petitioner has
given up his caste claim and, in view of the Full Bench judgment (supra) has
only sought protection of his services.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, contended
that the services of the petitioner be protected, in view of the judgment of the
Full Bench (supra) as the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date i.e.
28.11.2000 and there is no observation of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Rajput Bhmata'.
The learned counsel submitted that both the conditions are satisfied by the
petitioner as per the directions of the Full Bench.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Ambarish Joshi, did
not dispute the legal position as laid down by the Full Bench. He stated that
that no finding of fraud is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee against the
petitioner in its order.
7. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record as
wp.5391.16
well as the judgment of the Full Bench, it is found that the services of the
petitioner are required to be protected. The petitioner was appointed before
the cut off date, i.e. on 1.9.1992. So also, there is no observation of the
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had secured the benefits meant for
'Rajput Bhamta', fraudulently. Thus, both the conditions as required by the
Full Bench judgment are fulfilled by the petitioner.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is
passed:-
ig ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services
of the petitioner, on the post of Assistant Teacher, on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent
nos. 2 & 3 within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny
would seek the benefits meant for 'Rajput Bhamta' (V.J.), in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
