Bombay High Court
Sarita D/O Gangadhar Dhakate ... vs District Collector, Bhandara And ... on 29 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6693/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 6693/2016
Sarita d/o Gangadhar Dhakate @
(Sarita w/o Ratan Parate),
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Panchayat Samiti Colony, Shastri Ward,
Gondia, District Gondia. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. District Collector, Bhandara.
2. Assistant District Registrar Class I
(Lower Grade) Bhandara District,
Bhandara.
3.
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.M. Sudame, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.P. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 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.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of her
services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015(1)
Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra &
Others).
WP 6693/16 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 15.06.1995
on the post reserved for the scheduled tribes. The petitioner claimed to
belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the scrutiny committee, for verification. The scrutiny
committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order
dated 28.10.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the said order and
has only sought for the protection of her services in view the judgment of
the Full Bench.
4. Shri Sudame, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the petitioner has given up her claim of belonging to Halba
Scheduled Tribe and is only seeking the protection of her services in view
of the judgment of the Full Bench. It is stated that the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1995 and there is no
observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner has
fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe.
5. Shri Deshpande, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents, does not dispute the position of law as laid
down by the judgment of the Full Bench. It is admitted 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 Halba Scheduled Tribe.
WP 6693/16 3 Judgment
6. On a reading of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order
of the scrutiny committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner
need to be protected. The petitioner was appointed before the cut-off
date on 15.06.1995 and there is no observation in the order of the
scrutiny committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the
benefits meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe. Both the conditions, that
are required to be satisfied in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
stand satisfied in case of the petitioner .
7. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to protect the services of the petitioner on
the post of junior clerk on the condition that the petitioner tenders an
undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos.1 and 2, within a
period of four weeks, that the petitioner would not seek the benefits
meant for the Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
CERTIFICATE
WP 6693/16 4 Judgment
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 27.07.2016.
