Bombay High Court
Urmila Vaijnath Kolle vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 October, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.10089/13
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.10089 OF 2013.
Urmila D/o Vaijnath Kolhe,
Age 38 years, Occ.Service,
R/o C/o Rajkumat Matpati,
Nandanwan Hsg. Society,
Near Medical College, Ambajogai
Road, Tq. Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Secretary Social Welfare
Department, Mumbai.
2. The Chairman/Secretary,
Shivjagruti Senior College,
Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist.Latur.
3.The Principal,
Shivjagruti Senior College,
Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist.Latur. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Senior advocate i/by
Mr.M.C.Swami, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate with Mr.S.B.Solanke,
advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:42:26 :::
2 W.P.No.10089/13
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.L.WADANE,JJ.
Date : 01.10.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a
lecturer on 30.11.1998 on temporary basis and
thereafter permanently on 20.12.1999 with
Respondent No.3 College. The petitioner was
appointed from SC category. The petitioner was
in service right since the date of her
appointment. The caste certificate of the
petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee
for validation. The Scrutiny Committee under its
order dated 26.7.2012, invalidated the caste
claim of the petitioner. The said order was
assailed before this Court in W.P.No.6908/2012.
This Court rejected the Writ Petition and upheld
the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee
invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner
vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.2013.
After dismissal of the said Writ Petition, the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 terminated the services of
the petitioner under order dated 16.11.2013. The
same is assailed in the present Writ Petition.
4. Mr.Mandlik, learned Senior advocate for
the petitioner submits that the caste claim of
the petitioner is invalidated on the ground that
the petitioner is not in a position to bring on
record sufficient evidence to prove her caste as
Beda Jangam-Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel
submits that there was no suppression on the part
of the petitioner nor there is any finding of
fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner by Committee or by this Court. The
petitioner is entitled for protection of her
service and reinstatement in view of the judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
"Arun S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" reported in 2015 (1)
Mh.L.J.457. The learned Senior advocate further
submits that the post on which the petitioner was
working is still vacant.
5. Mr.Hon, learned Senior advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that upon
invalidation of the caste claim of the
petitioner, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
rightly taken action and terminated the services
of the petitioner.
ig The petitioner though did not
belong to the Scheduled Caste category has taken
benefit of the false SC certificate issued in her
favour, thereby depriving one genuine candidate
from SC category opportunity of employment. The
petitioner can not be allowed to take advantage
of her own wrong. The learned Senior advocate
further submits that the petitioner had tried to
mislead the Committee. Only because Committee has
not used the word fraud or misrepresentation,
that is not sufficient for the petitioner to take
advantage. Even the conduct of the petitioner is
required to be considered and the representations
made from time to time are also required to be
considered while coming to the conclusion as to
whether the petitioner is guilty of
misrepresentation or fraud. Even the said aspect
is laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in a case of "Arun V/o Vishwanath
Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra and others"
referred to supra. The learned Senior advocate
has taken us through the record and submits that
the petitioner even gave wrong genealogy before
the Committee. Two separate genealogies were
given by the petitioner before the Committee.
ig It
was with the sole purpose to mislead the
Committee. The same tantamounts to playing fraud
upon the Committee. The learned Senior advocate
further refers to the other judgments delivered
by the Apex Court in a case of "Kavita Solunke
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in
AIR 2012 Supreme Court 3016, so also the judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
"Ganesh Rambhau Khalale Vs. State of Maharashtra"
reported in AIR 2009 Bom. 122 and the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Ku
Archana Dadarao Pethkar Vs. Joint Commissioner
and Vice Chairman" reported in 2013 CJ (Bom) 218.
The learned Senior advocate also relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Bhaurao
Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported
in 2005 (7) SCC-605. The learned Senior advocate
also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
a case of "State of Maharashtra and others Vs.
Sanjay K.Nimje" reported in Civil Appeal No.231
of 2007 dated 16.1.2007.
6. We have also heard learned A.G.P.
7.
We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned Senior counsel for the
respective parties.
8. All the judgments referred to by the
learned Senior advocate for Respondents have been
considered by the Full Bench of this Court in a
case of "Arun S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" referred to supra. The
gloss has been put to the said judgment referred
to by the learned senior advocate for Respondent
by the Full Bench of this Court in a case of
"Arun S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others".
9. With the assistance of the learned
Senior advocate for both the parties, we have
gone through the judgments delivered by the
Committee as well as this Court invalidating the
caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to
Beda Jangam-Scheduled Caste. The Scrutiny
Committee nor this Court has arrived at any
conclusion nor has given any finding that the
petitioner ig is guilty of fraud or
misrepresentation. The reliance is placed by the
learned Senior advocate for Respondents on the
genealogy given by the petitioner in its
affidavit on 25.5.2009, whereby Revanappa is
shown as cousin grand father. Reliance has been
placed upon both these genealogy submitted.
10. It would appear that nothing would
depend upon the said genealogy. It is also not
brought on record that Revanappa was not the
cousin grand father. Be that as it may, the
Committee has not found any objectionable in the
said genealogy. The said genealogy was also
referred to the Vigilance and the Vigilance has
not found anything wrong in the same nor the
Committee is guided by the said genealogy.
11. It appears that the petitioner did not
have the sufficient evidence to substantiate her
caste. The petitioner did not possess any
evidence prior to 1950.
12. Considering the above, the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Arun
S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others" referred to supra would squarely
apply.
13. The petitioner is appointed permanently
in the year 1998 i.e. prior to the enforcement of
"The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000"
and as such is entitled for protection in service
as per judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
in a case of "Arun S/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others" referred to
supra. We had asked the learned Senior advocate
for respective parties as to whether the post on
which the petitioner was working is still vacant.
Upon taking instructions from the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3, the learned Senior counsel for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 affirms that the said post
is still vacant. It is also stated that the
petitioner has not been promoted and still works
on the same
ig post on which she was appointed
initially.
14. In light of the above, the petitioner
would be entitled for the protection in service
and reinstatement but will not be entitled for
the wages since the date of her termination till
her reinstatement. However, the said period will
be counted for the purpose of continuity in
service.
15. In the result, we pass the following
order :
a) The impugned order of termination dated
16.11.2013 is quashed and set aside. The
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall reinstate the
petitioner on her original post within a period
of 15 days from today. The petitioner shall not
be entitled for any back wages from the date of
her termination till 14th October 2016 i.e. till
the date she is reinstated, however, the said
period shall be counted for the purpose of
continuity in service and all further
consequential benefits.
ig The petitioner shall not
be entitled to take benefit of her SC category
during the continuance of her service or in any
walk of life. The entry of this order shall be
taken in the service book of the petitioner.
b) Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
c) Learned senior counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 states that the effect of this
judgment be stayed for four (4) weeks. Our
judgment is based on the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court, as such request made is
refused.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp10089.13
