Subhash Ramdas Hade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1634 Bom

                                                               1                                         WP.7144.16.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 7144 OF 2016.


     Subhash Ramdas Hade,
     aged 49 years, Occu. Service,
     Resident of Post Sawana, Tal.
     Chikhli, District Buldhana.                            ......                            PETITIONER.

                      ....Versus....

     1]  The State of Maharashtra,
         through its Secretary, Department
         of Social Justice & Empowerment,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

     2] The Chief Executive Officer,
        Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,

     3] The Chairman,
        Divisional Caste Certificate 
        Scrutiny Committee No. 2,
        Amravati Division, Akola.      .....                                               RESPONDENTS.


     Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the petitioner,
     Mr. C.A. Lokhande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
     nos. 1 & 3.
     Mr. Tariq Mohammad Zaheer, Advocate for respondent no. 2.


                               CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 11, 2017.

     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)





                                                                2                                         WP.7144.16.odt

     1]               Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.   Heard finally with

the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2] The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

protection of his services in view of the judgment of the larger Bench

of this Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of

Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(I) Mh. L.J. 457 dated

22.12.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Rajput

Bhamta - Vimukta Jati. On 9.3.1996 the petitioner was appointed on

the post of Assistant Teacher. As the petitioner was appointed on the

post reserved for Vimukta Jati, his caste certificate was forwarded to

the Scrutiny Committee for due verification. By the order dated

7.11.2016 his caste claim has been invalidated.

3] Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submits on instructions that the petitioner is not desirous of

challenging the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on merits.

He states that the petitioner would be satisfied if his services are

protected considering the fact that he was appointed in the year 1996.

He states that in the impugned order there is no finding recorded that

the documents relied upon by him were obtained by fraud or were

3 WP.7144.16.odt

tampered with.

4] Mr. C.A. Lokhande, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for the respondent nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. T.M. Zaheer, learned Counsel

for the respondent no. 2, oppose the prayer made in the Writ Petition.

The learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that as the

petitioner was appointed on a post reserved for Vimukta Jati, he

would not be entitled for protection on account of invalidation of his

caste claim.

5] Perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

reveals that there is no finding recorded that the documents on which

he sought to justify his caste claim are either vitiated by fraud or have

been tampered with. Considering the fact that the petitioner has

been appointed by order dated 9.3.1996, in view of the law laid down

by the larger Bench in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone (cited supra),

we find that the petitioner would be entitled for protection of his

services.

6] In view of the aforesaid, it is declared that the petitioner is

entitled for protection of his services as Assistant Teacher subject to

4 WP.7144.16.odt

filing an undertaking within a period of four weeks from today that

neither he nor his progeny would seek benefit of belonging to Rajput

Bhamta - Vimukta Jati. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

There will be no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE.                                                          J
                                                                                           UDGE.
    J.