Shri Bhaskar Narayan Bokde vs The State Of Maharashtra & 5 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6367 Bom

                                                 1               wp294.02.odt

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 2002

            Bhaskar Narayan Bokde,
            aged about 38 years, Occ. Govt. Service,
            R/o (for the purpose of services at Ganj
            Basoda, Bhopal), village Mohadi,
            District - Bhandara      ......                                PETITIONER

                                ...VERSUS...

 1]         The State of Maharashtra, through its
            Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
            Manatralaya, Mumbai.

 2]         The Chairman,
            Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
            Committee, Nagpur, Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan,
            Giripeth, Nagpur. 

 3]         Deputy Chief Officer,
            SC/ST Cell, PRS Department,
            Central Bank of India, Chander Mukhi,
            Nariman Point, Mumbai.

 4]         The Regional Manager,
            Regional Office, Central Bank of India,
            9, Arera Hills, Bhopal. 

 5]         The Zonal Manager,
            Zonal Office, Central Bank of India,
            First Floor, 9, Arera Hills, Bhopal. 

 6]      The Branch Manager,
         Central Bank of India,
         Basoda, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.  ...........       RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri N.R.Pathrabe, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri C.A.Lokhande, AGP for R-1 and 2.
 Shri Daruwala, Advocate h/f Shri W.W.Almelkar, Advocate for R-4
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:59:48 :::
                                                      2               wp294.02.odt

                            CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                      MANISH PITALE, JJ.
                                         th
                            DATE    : 18    AUGUST 2017


 JUDGMENT (Per Deshpande, J.)

1] This writ petition challenges the oder dated

24.09.2001 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur, invalidating the caste claim of

the petitioner for Halbi - Scheduled Tribe category and

cancelling the caste certificate dated 18.07.1988 and

confiscating the same.

2] It is not in dispute that on the basis of caste

certificate dated 18.07.1988 showing that the petitioner

belongs to Halbi-Scheduled Tribe, he was appointed to the

post of Clerk in the services of respondent No.5 against the

post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. The caste

certificate produced by him was forwarded to the Scrutiny

Committee for verification and by order dated 24.09.2001, it

has been invalidated. The petitioner apprehended the

adverse action of termination from service and therefore

approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

                                                                   3                       wp294.02.odt

          3]               On   29.01.2002,     the   petitioner   was   granted

protection in service, which was extended on 05.02.2002 and

ultimately on 23.06.2003, the same was continued pending

the decision of the petition when the petition was admitted.

The petitioner was continuously working on the post.

4] On 22.06.2017, this matter was called out final

hearing, when this Court passed an order as under;

"This petition challenges the invalidation of caste claim of the petitioner for Halba Scheduled Tribe category.

Shri Pathrabe, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was put a specific question as to whether the petitioner is interested in getting protection in service. He, however, submits that he is unable to contact the petitioner and is not knowing his whereabouts. He has urged that the matter be decided on merits, and, according to him, it is a case of remand of the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh, because the petitioner was not supplied with the copies of the police vigilance cell report.

The petitioner was initially appointed on 2-1-1990 as Clerk in the respondent No.4-Bank as a candidate belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe category. His caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee on 30-4-1994 for scrutiny and verification. After going through the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, we find the observation that the police vigilance cell report was supplied to the candidate through his employer along with the notice of hearing dated 9-4-2001 and the candidate was called for hearing on 23-4- 2001 to record his comments on the police vigilance cell report, but the petitioner did not appear. The Scrutiny Committee issued notices on 4-5- 2001, 13-6-2001 and 6-9-2001, and called the candidate for hearing on 21-5- 2001, 25-6-2001 and 24-9-2001 respectively. The petitioner, however, neither did appear nor inform anything. In view of this, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

It seems that the petitioner was aged about 38 years when this petition was filed on 21-1-2002. Now he must be aged about 55 years. Prima facie, we find that it is a device adopted to prolong the scrutiny and verification of the caste claim till he attains the age of superannuation.

Put up this matter after eight weeks so as to enable Shri Pathrabe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to contact his client and obtain instructions.

We vacate the interim order passed by this Court on earlier occasion on 23-6- 2003 and permit the respondent No.4-Bank to issue an order of reversion/termination of the petitioner from service on the basis of invalidation of his caste claim. However, this order is made without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, and if this Court is satisfied on hearing the petitioner, the Court may direct the respondents to restore the petitioner back to the post of Assistant Manager, which he is presently holding.

4 wp294.02.odt

Subsequently, again on 17.07.2017, this Court

passed an order as under.

"The question is of serving notice/s by the Scrutiny Committee upon the petitioner for hearing and also the copy of vigilance cell report.

The employer has to file an affidavit in respect of notices forwarded to the petitioner.

Put up this matter in the next week."

On 26.07.2017, the following order was passed.

"On 22-6-2017 and 17-7-2017, this Court passed the orders, in response to which, it is expected that the respondent No.4-Bank to file an affidavit before this Court. The Bank has to state as to whether the petitioner has been terminated from service as per the order dated 22-6-2017, and has also to state as to whether the notices issued by the Scrutiny Committee were served upon the petitioner along with the police vigilance cell report.

Shri Almelkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-Bank, seeks two weeks' time by way of last chance to file such affidavit. Hence, we grant him two weeks' time to file an affidavit; failing which the respondent No.4-Bank shall pay the costs of Rs.15,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur for wasting the time of this Court.

S.O. to 9-8-2017."

5] It is now informed that the petitioner has been

terminated from service and he is out of employment. The

respondents have not yet filed any affidavit stating that the

notices issued by the Scrutiny Committee for hearing on

09.04.2001, 23,04.2001 and thereafter on 04.05.2001,

13.06.2001, 06.09.2001 were served upon the petitioner

through employer. We, therefore, think it proper to remand

the matter back to the said Committee by setting aside the

order with a direction to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner afresh within the stipulated period.

                                                      5               wp294.02.odt




          6]               Shri Pathrabe, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is personally present

before this Court and submits that the petitioner be restored

to the position pending the decision by the Scrutiny

Committee in respect of his caste claim.

7] In view of the decision which we have delivered

in Writ Petition No. 3373 of 2002 along with connected

matters on 17.07.2017, we do not find any reason to

continue the protection granted to the petitioner or to restore

him in service, unless his caste claim is validated by the

Scrutiny Committee. We have already taken a view that upon

invalidation of the caste claim, it is not possible for this Court

either to protect the service of the person who is appointed

against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category or to

prevent the consequences flowing from operation of Section

10 of Act No.XXIII of 2001. We cannot, therefore, accept the

prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8] In the result, the writ petition is party allowed.

The order dated 24.09.2001 passed by the Scheduled Tribes

6 wp294.02.odt

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

said Committee for decision afresh in accordance with law.

The petitioner to appear before the said Committee on

18.09.2017. The Committee shall decide the claim afresh in

accordance with law within a period of six months thereafter.

No fresh notice shall be issued to the petitioner. If the claim

of the petitioner is validated by the Scrutiny Committee, it

shall be open for the employer to take steps to reinstate the

petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, failing

which the liberty shall be granted to the petitioner to

approach this Court.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                           JUDGE


 Rvjalit