Bombay High Court
Jaideo S/O Dayaram Bokade, ... vs Adarsh Bahu Uddeshiya Mandal Thr. ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp3666.08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3666 of 2008
Jaideo s/o Dayaram Bokade,
Aged 38 years,
Resident of Ram Mandir Ward,
Bhandara,
Tq. District Bhandara. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Adarsha Bahu Uddeshiya Mandal,
Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara
(through its Secretary Shri Manoj
Wadibhasme).
2. President Shri S.S. Wadibhasme,
Adarsha Bahu Uddeshiya Mandal,
Bhandara.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms Smita Jaipurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 1 September, 2016
st
wp3666.08.odt
Oral Judgment :
1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher to
teach the Middle School Classes on 11-7-1994 and thereafter he was
continued in service till the date of his termination on 31-1-2005 on
the ground that he was appointed as a candidate belong to Halba
Scheduled Tribe category, but the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, by its order dated 12-8-2004, has invalidated the caste
certificate dated 22-8-1988, on the basis of which he was appointed on
the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The order of
termination dated 31-1-2005 was the subject-matter of challenge
before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC-10/2005 filed under
Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Hence, this petition.
2. The School Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, reported in
(2004) 2 SCC 105, to hold that mere invalidation of caste claim by the
Scrutiny Committee should result in removal of the petitioner from
service. During the pendency of the appeal before the School
Tribunal, the petitioner was in the employment, and consequently in
wp3666.08.odt
this petition, this Court has continued the protection, and till this date
he is in the employment.
3. In the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others,
reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457, the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, cited supra, relied upon
by the School Tribunal, has been considered, and it is held that the
said decision applies in case of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee holding that the certificate was obtained by practising
fraud. The relevant portion of para 66 of the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court is reproduced below :
"66. In view of the law, which we have laid down, the
relief of protection of service after invalidation of caste claim
can be granted by the High Court on the basis of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kavita Solunke vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2012(8) SCC 430, and Shalini vs. New English High School
Association and others, reported in 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 913
= (2013) 16 SCC 526. The manner and the extent to which
such protection is to be made available, is laid down as under :
wp3666.08.odt
(a) The appointments or promotions made up to
15-6-1995 in public employment on the basis of the Caste
Certificates against a post reserved for any of the backward
class categories, stand protected in terms of the Government
Resolutions dated 15-6-1995 and 30-6-2004 and shall not be
disturbed, and the appointments that have become final
between 15-6-1995 and 28-11-2000 shall remain unaffected in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in Milind's case.
(b) The grant of protection in terms of the Government
Resolutions dated 15-6-1995 and 30-6-2004 and the decision
in Milind's case, shall be subject to the following conditions :
(i) that upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee,
the Caste Certificate produced to secure an appointment,
is not found to be false or fraudulent,
(ii) that the appointee shall not take any advantage in
terms of the promotion or otherwise after
28-11-2000 solely on the basis of his claim as a
candidate belonging to any of the backward class
categories, in respect of which his claim is invalidated by
the Scrutiny Committee, and
(iii) that it shall be permissible for the Competent
Authority to withdraw the benefits or promotions
obtained after 28-11-2000 as a candidate belonging to
wp3666.08.odt
backward class category for which the claim has been
rejected. ..."
It is thus apparent that the appointments made up to 15-6-1995 and
which have become final up to 28-11-2000 stand protected in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Milind and others, reported in 2001(1) SCC 4, and mere invalidation of
the caste claim shall not result in the consequences of withdrawal of
benefits or discharge from the employment. The employment of the
petitioner was, therefore, required to be protected, and since the
Tribunal has failed to grant such protection, the petition will have to
be allowed.
4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and
order dated 12-8-2008 delivered by the School Tribunal (Nagpur),
Chandrapur, in Appeal No.STC-10/2005, is hereby quashed and set
aside, along with the order of termination of the petitioner from
service passed on 31-1-2005. The petitioner shall be entitled to
continue in service upon compliance with the conditions stipulated in
para 66 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, cited supra,
within a period of one month from the date of this judgment.
wp3666.08.odt
5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
wp3666.08.odt
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : P.D. Lanjewar, PS
Uploaded on : 6-9-2016
