Anil Sheshrao Pagrut vs Zilla Parishad Washim Thr. Chief ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6335 Bom

                                                      1                                                                   WP.5446.16


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                                              
                                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 5446 OF 2016




                                                                               
     Anil Sheshrao Pagrut,
     aged 51 years, Occ. Service,
     R/o Vandevi Nagar, By-pass 
     Road, Karanja, Tq. Karanja, 
     District Washim.                                                                     ...    PETITIONER.




                                                            
                                                                                                                    
                         VERSUS    
     1]   Zilla Parishad, Washim,
                                  
           through its Chief Executive Officer,
           Washim, Tq. & Dist. Washim,

     2]   Education Officer (Primary),
           Zilla Parishad, Washim, 
      


           Tq. & Dist. Washim. 
   



     3]   Block Education Officer,
           Panchayat Samiti, Karanja (Lad),
           Tq. Karanja (Lad), Dist. Washim. 





     4]   Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
           Committee No. 2, Akola,
           Collector Office Premises
           Administrative Building, II Floor,





           Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.                                                      ...    RESPONDENTS.


     Mr. D.G. Gawande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
     Mr. A.S. Deshpande,  Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2,
     Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 4.
             
                               CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.     

DATED : OCTOBER 25, 2016.

                                                       2                                                                   WP.5446.16


     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R.GAVAI, J).




                                                                                                              
                                                                                
     1]                 Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.     Heard the learned

Counsel for the parties finally by consent.

2] The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

the order dated 27.7.2016 vide which the services of the petitioner have

been terminated.

3] The petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher

against a post reserved for Other Backward Class. Since the petitioner

claimed to be belonging to O.B.C., his claim came to be referred to the

Caste Scrutiny Committee for considering the validity of the claim. The

claim is still pending. However, by the impugned order, the petitioner's

services came to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner has

failed to submit the validity certificate.

4] It is not in the hands of the candidate as to within how much

time the respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee will decide his claim. The

petitioner is not expected to do something which is beyond his control.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the

respondents have erred in terminating the services of the petitioner on

3 WP.5446.16

account of non-submission of the validity certificate.

5] In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in the

following terms :-

I. The order dated 27.7.2016 is quashed and set aside,

II. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are directed to reinstate the petitioner

on the post which he was holding prior to the impugned order

being passed.

III. Though it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue for

all purposes, he would not be entitled for the salary for the period

he was out of employment. However, the respondents shall

regularly pay the salary of the petitioner from the date on which

the petitioner joins the services. The petitioner should be

permitted to join the services with effect from 1.11.2016.

IV. The respondent No.4 is directed to decide the claim of the

petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

period of six months from today.

V. Till the decision of the respondent no.4 on the claim of the

petitioner, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 shall not take any coercive

steps against the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of

validity certificate.

4 WP.5446.16

VI. In the event the order passed by the respondent no.4 is adverse

to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect

to for a period of three weeks from the date on which

communication from respondent no.4 is received.

6] With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                                     JUDGE
     J.