Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Bhayalal Dhote vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp5269.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5269 OF 2016
Santosh s/o. Bhayalal Dhote,
Aged about 28 years, Occ.
Service, r/o. Chemical Ward No.
6, Ghuggus, Tq. and District
Chandrapur. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, through its
Member.
2. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
having its Office at 400 KV
Grahan Kendra Sanwasu
Vibhag, GCR Building, CTPS
Campus, Durgapur, Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:32 :::
2 wp5269.16.odt
3. Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company, having its
Office at C-19 Prakashganga
Building BKC, Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400051, through its
Managing Director.
4. State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.K.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms Ritu Kaliya, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 and 4.
Mr.D.M.Kale, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI
AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 26th October, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. GAVAI, J) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent.
3 wp5269.16.odt
2. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner
has challenged communication dt.1.2.2016, vide which he
was informed that since he had not submitted the Validity
Certificate certifying that he belongs to 'Binjwar'
Scheduled Tribe, his services shall stand suspended.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was
appointed on compassionate ground and his appointment
was not against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He,
therefore, submits that the very insistence on behalf of the
respondent for getting the caste claim of petitioner
validated is not sustainable in law.
4. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would also clearly reveal that
the contention, as raised by the petitioner, is correct. The
petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate
ground and accordingly, he was appointed. However, it
appears that, since the petitioner has shown his caste to be
'Binjwar' Scheduled Tribe, the respondent/employer
insisted on getting his caste claim validated. It also
4 wp5269.16.odt
appears that, on the proposal being sent, respondent
no.1/Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the
petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice was also
issued to the petitioner on 7th September, 2016.
5. We find that when the petitioner's appointment
itself was not on the basis of his claim of belonging to
Scheduled Tribe, but purely on compassionate ground, the
total approach of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is erroneous.
Had the petitioner claimed to have been appointed against
the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, then the respondent
would have been justified in doing so.
6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to
allow the petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Communications dt.1.2.2016 and 8.9.2016 are quashed
and set aside.
7. It is, however, made clear that neither the
petitioner nor his progeny would be entitled to any of the
5 wp5269.16.odt
benefits on the basis of his claim of belonging to Scheduled
Tribe.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
6 wp5269.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : Jaiswal, P.S. Uploaded on :
