Bombay High Court
Sou. Savita W/O. Premsingh Sayar ... vs The Divisional Caste ... on 3 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp4571.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4571/2015
PETITIONER: Sou. Savita w/o Premsingh Sayar
(Ku. Savita d/o Aniruddhasingh Chavan),
Aged about 48 years, Occ - Service,
C/o Shri Bandu Thakre, Near N.G.
Public School, Motinagar, Amravati.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1, Amravati
through its Joint Commissioner/Vice Chairman.
2. Bal Shikshan Mandal, Khaparde Bagicha,
Amravati through its President/Secretary.
3. Adarsh Prathmik Shala,
Khaparde Bagicha, Amravati,
through its Head Mistress.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Karanja (Lad), District - Washim.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.A. Jachak, Advocate for petitioner
Shri V.P. Maldhure, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 03.10.2016
wp4571.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Scrutiny Committee dated 2.8.2014 refusing to verify the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati on the ground that
the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was not in
consonance with the requirements of Form - 7 under Rule 5 (6) of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.
Shri Jachak, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner is working with the respondent no.3 - School as an
Assistant Teacher since the year 1987 on a post reserved for the Vimukta
Jatis and the petitioner is seeking verification of her caste claim only for
the purpose of seeking protection of her services, in view of the judgment
of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is stated that the
petitioner is desirous of seeking protection of her services after her caste
claim is verified and hence, had requested the Scrutiny Committee to
decide the caste claim expeditiously. It is stated that the Scrutiny
wp4571.15.odt
Committee has wrongfully refused to verify the caste claim of the
petitioner by observing that the caste certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner is not as per Form - 7 under Rule 5 (6) of the Rules of 2012. It
is stated that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have verified the caste
claim of the petitioner as the caste certificate was issued in favour of the
petitioner as early as in the year 1980. It is stated that Form - 7 under
Rule 5 (6) of the Rules of 2012 pertains to a Form of caste certificate
when a person belonging to Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the State Government and the Scrutiny Committee does not
dispute that Form - 7 under Rule 5 (6) is a Form of caste certificate for a
candidate who is converted to Buddhism. It is admitted that the petitioner
has claims to belong to Rajput Bhamta, Vimukta Jati and a certificate
cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner in Form - 7 under Rule 5 (6)
of the Rules of 2012.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of Form -7 under Rule 5 (6) of the Rules of 2012, we find that the
Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in refusing to verify the caste
claim of the petitioner by observing that the caste certificate is not in
Form- 7 under Rule 5 (6). We find that Form - 7 is a Form that certifies
that a candidate belonged to the Scheduled Castes Community before
wp4571.15.odt
his/her conversion to Buddhism. It appears that the Scrutiny Committee
has committed an error in refusing to verify the caste claim of the
petitioner. Since the petitioner only seeks the protection of her services, it
would be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim
of the petitioner, at the earliest.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The order of
termination of the petitioner's services is hereby quashed and set aside.
The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner within eighteen months. The services of the petitioner are
protected till her caste claim is decided.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp4571.15.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 04/10/2016
ig
