Rajanikant Anandrao Pikale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5344 Bom

                                     1                                  WP 6389-16


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6389 OF 2016




                                                   
     Rajanikant Anandrao Pok le,
     Age; 27 years, occu: Service,
     R/o Telangwadi, Tq. Khandar
     District: Nanded, At present Soygaon,
     Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad.                 ...PETITIONER




                                                  
              versus

     1.       The State of Maharashtra
              Through Secretary to Tribal




                                            
              Development Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai

     2.
                             
              The Chief Executive Officer,
              Zilla Parishad Aurangabad
              District Aurangabad.
                            
     3.       The Block Development Officer,
              Panchayat Samiti Soygaon,
              Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad.
      

     4.       The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
              Verification committee Aurangabad,
              Through its Dy. Director ( R ),
   



              Aurangabad.                      ...RESPONDENTS

                                         .....
     Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner
     Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 4





     Mr. D. K. Rajput, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 & 3
                                         .....
                                     CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
                                                K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : R.M. BORDE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned

counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal at the

admission stage.

2. The petitioner came to be appointed as contractual Gramsevak with

respondent No. 2 - Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Since the petitioner was

2 WP 6389-16

appointed against reserved category, he was directed to submit caste

validation proposal within prescribed period. The petitioner contends that,

the proposal tendered by the employer for verification of the tribe

certificate is pending consideration with respondent No. 4- Scrutiny

Committee and the proposal has not yet been finally decided. In the facts

of the case, this petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No. 4-

Scrutiny Committee to take decision in respect of caste validation claim of

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

one year from today and it is accordingly directed.

3.

The petitioner contends that, in view of clause 8 of the appointment

order, on completion of three years of continuous service, the services of

the petitioner are liable to be regularized subject to availability of the post.

The petitioner submits that, the posts are available and since he has

completed three years service, his services are liable to be regularized

provisionally subject to submission of the caste validation claim.

4. In the facts of the case, respondent No. 2 is directed to provisionally

regularize the services of the petitioner subject to furnishing the caste

validation certificate on declaration of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee and subject to availability of the post. Rule is accordingly made

absolute in terms of the directions issued as above. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                        Sd/-                                 Sd/-
             [K. K. SONAWANE, J.]                       [R.M. BORDE, J.]


     MTK