Bombay High Court
Sanjay Bhimraoji Kale vs State Of Mah. & 4 Others on 12 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1204WP2053.2000-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2053 OF 2000
PETITIONER :- Sanjay s/o Bhimraoji Kale, aged about 32
years, resident of Kholapur, Tahsil Bhatkuli,
District-Amravati (Driver, M.S.R.T.C.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Tribal
Development, Mantralaya, Bombay-32.
2. The Committee for Caste Scrutiny &
Verification of Tribes, through its Chairman,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
3. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra, State
Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4. Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation, Ramtek Depot,
District Nagpur.
5. The Executive Magistrate, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sumit G. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.R.Taiwade, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
None for the respondent Nos3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 12.04.2017
1204WP2053.2000-Judgment 2/4
R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the
order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 06/05/2000 invalidating the
claim of the petitioner of belonging to Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe.
The petitioner has given up the prayer challenging the order of the
Scrutiny Committee and has only sought the protection of his services in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.
457 (Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others). In view of
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted
to amend the writ petition accordingly. The amendment should be
carried out forthwith.
2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent-
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as a driver in 1999 on a
post earmarked for the scheduled tribes. The petitioner had claimed to
belong to Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the claim of the petitioner by the order dated 06/05/2000.
The petitioner has given up his challenge to the order of the Scrutiny
Committee and has only sought the protection of his services in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
3. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking
1204WP2053.2000-Judgment 3/4
the protection of services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench
stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner
was appointed as a driver in the M.S.R.T.C. before the cut-off date and
there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli
Mahadeo scheduled tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the
petitioner is rejected only because the petitioner could not prove the
same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
4. Mrs. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, does not dispute the position of
law as laid down by the Full Bench of this court. It is fairly stated that it
does not appear from the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Koli
Mahadeo scheduled tribe. It is submitted that in some of the documents
pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, caste Koli was recorded in
the caste column and hence, the caste claim of the petitioner was
rejected. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the
circumstances of the case.
5. On a reading of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and
the judgment of the Full Bench, we find that the petitioner is entitled to
the protection of services. The petitioner was appointed before the
1204WP2053.2000-Judgment 4/4
cut-off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits
meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. As rightly submitted on
behalf of the parties, we find that the caste claim of the petitioner is
rejected as in some of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the
petitioner, caste Koli was recorded in the caste column instead of 'Koli
Mahadeo'. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be
entitled to the protection of his services as a driver, with the
respondent-M.S.R.T.C.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent-M.S.R.T.C. is directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the post of driver, on the condition that the
petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this court and to the respondent-
M.S.R.T.C. within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny
would claim the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe, in
future. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
