Tarachand S/O Bapurao Dhapodkar vs Vice-Chairman And Joint ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1851 Bom

37-WP-722-17                                                                                  1/2


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

                          WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2017


Tarachand s/o Bapurao Dhapodkar 
Aged about 50 years. Occ. Service, 
R/o O, Sai Niwas, Naik Raod, Mahal, 
Near Khot Bhawan, Behind Gajanan Mandir, 
Nagpur.                                                          ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.  Vice-Chairman & Joint Commissioner,
     Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 
     Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur. 

2.  Chief Executive Officer,
     Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.                                     ... Respondents. 


Shri S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner. 
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 


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

DATE : April 19, 2017

Oral Judgment : (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of learned

counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is appointed as 'Junior Assistant' in the

establishment of respondent No.2 in the year 1999 on the basis of his claim

of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. However, the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe has been negatived by the

37-WP-722-17 2/2

Scrutiny Committee on 30/11/2015.

The issue is to whether 'Halba Koshti' Scheduled Tribes are

entitled to be treated as Scheduled Tribe was not settled for considerable

time. For the first time in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind

Katware AIR 2001 SC 393, the Honourable Apex Court held that 'Halba

Koshti' are not to be treated as Scheduled Tribe. However for a long period

between 1984 to 2000 the position was not settled. The petitioner is

undisputedly in employment prior to the date of judgment in Milind

Katware (supra). Undisputedly there is no adverse finding of fact in the

order of Scrutiny Committee. The claim is invalidated only on the ground

that in entires against the parents of the petitioner there is mention of Koshti

Tribe.

In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. The

respondent is directed to protect the services of the petitioner. However,

the petitioner would be treated as candidate from open category. The

petitioner shall file an affidavit in this Court that neither he nor his progeny

shall claim any of the benefits belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

                                                      JUDGE                              JUDGE


Asmita