Sanjay S/O Sureshrao Thakre vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5662 Bom

WP 1665/15                                           1                            Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 1665/2015
Sanjay s/o Sureshrao Thakre,
aged 41 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Ward No.2,
Chikhali, Tah. Chikhali, Dist. Buldana.                                      PETITIONER

                                    .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Department of Education,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.    Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chikhali,
      Dist. Buldana, Through its Secretary,
      having its office at Adarsh Vidyalaya, 
      Chikhali, Tah. Chikhali, Dist. Buldana.
3.    Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
      Scrutiny Committee,
      Through its Member Secretary,
      Ervin Square, at Amravati, Dist. Amravati.                             RESPONDENTS


     Shri A.S. Chakotkar, Advocate holding for Shri V.G. Wankhede, Counsel for the
                                       petitioner.
      Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent nos.1 & 3.


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondent no.3 to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a time

frame. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 not to

terminate the service of the petitioner.

WP 1665/15 2 Judgment

2. On 16.09.2016, a statement was made by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the scrutiny committee that

the caste claim of the petitioner was not to be found in the office of the

scrutiny committee and if the petitioner desires that his caste claim

should be verified, he should re-submit the same. We had then directed

the petitioner to re-submit his caste claim to the respondent no.2 in the

proper format so that the respondent no.2 could have forwarded the same

to the scrutiny committee for verification.

3. If the petitioner would have supplied the caste claim to the

respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 would have forwarded it to the

scrutiny committee, however the scrutiny committee has still not received

the caste claim of the petitioner till date. Anyways, this Court is not

inclined to consider this controversy and in the circumstances of the case,

a direction could be issued against the petitioner to submit his caste claim

in the proper format (online) to the respondent no.3-scrutiny committee

within one month. If the petitioner fails to submit the caste claim to the

scrutiny committee in the proper format within one month, the

respondent no.2 is free to terminate the services of the petitioner.

However, if the caste claim is so furnished, the scrutiny committee is

directed to decide the caste claim within one year. The services of the

petitioner would be protected till his caste claim is decided. It is needless

WP 1665/15 3 Judgment

to mention that the petitioner should ensure that his caste claim is

decided at the earliest and should cooperate with the scrutiny

committee.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

A copy of this order may be supplied by the office to the

respondent no.2 for information as none appears on behalf of the

respondent no.2, though served.

              JUDGE                                              JUDGE

APTE