Bombay High Court
Kaduba Fakirba Bawaskar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 24 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
2410WP4199.05-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2005
PETITIONER :- Kaduba Fakirba Bawaskar, Age : years,
Occ: Service, R/o 33 KV Sub Station,
Hasnabad, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through it's
Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
ig Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Chairman, Committee for Scrutiny &
Verification of the Tribes Claim, Amravati.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Buldhana.
4. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State
Distribution Company, Sanvasu Mandal,
Chanakya Complex No.2, Juna Jalna, District
Jalna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.M.Kukday, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. I.J. Damle, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. R.E.Moharir, counsel for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 24.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner had initially challenged
the order of the scrutiny committee dated 12/04/2005, invalidating the
2410WP4199.05-Judgment 2/4
claim of the petitioner of belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe. By
amending the writ petition, the petitioner has given up the said prayer
and has instead sought the protection of his services, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun
Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra).
2. The petitioner was appointed as a junior operator by the
respondent No.4 in the year 1991 on a post earmarked for the
scheduled tribes. Since the petitioner claimed to belong to Thakur
scheduled tribe, 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
12/04/2005. The petitioner has given up his challenge to the order of
the scrutiny committee and has only sought the protection of his
services, as 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 Thakur
scheduled tribe.
3. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date on
17/06/1991 and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny
committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for the Thakur scheduled tribe. It is submitted that the caste
claim of the petitioner is rejected as the petitioner was not able to prove
2410WP4199.05-Judgment 3/4
the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test. The
learned counsel seeks the protection of the services of the petitioner in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.
457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra).
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Moharir, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, do not
dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full Bench. It is not
disputed that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date in the
year 1991. It is further admitted that there is no observation in regard
to any fraud being played by the petitioner while seeking the benefits
meant for Thakur scheduled tribe. It is stated that an appropriate order
may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking
the protection of services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner
was appointed before the cut-off date as a junior operator on
17/06/1991 and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny
committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for the Thakur scheduled tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner
is invalidated, as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of
the documents and affinity test. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the
2410WP4199.05-Judgment 4/4
services of the petitioner are required to be protected, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent No.4 is directed to protect the services of the
petitioner on the post of junior operator on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking to the respondent No.4 and in this
court within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny
would seek the benefits meant for the Thakur scheduled tribe, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
