Shri Premdas S/O Hariram Lale vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4053 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-6920-13.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 6920 OF 2013

 Shri. Premdas s/o Hariram Lale,
 Aged about : 52 years,
 Occupation - Service, 
 R/o At Post Tahasil, Sakoli,
 Panchasheel Ward,
 District Bhandara.                                               ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. State of Maharashtra
    through Secretary,
    General Administration
    Department, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai 400032.

 2. Zilla Parishad,
    through its Chief Executive Officer,
    Gondia 441601.

 3. Block Development Officer,
    Panchayat Samiti, Salekasa,
    Tehsil Salekasa,
    District Gondia 441916.

 4. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
    No.3, Nagpur Division,
    Civil Lines, Nagpur
    Through : President / Secretary /
    Member Secretary.                                             ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri R. S. Charpe, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 4.
 Shri A. Y. Kapgate, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                              ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

05/07/2017.

2 J-WP-6920-13.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction

against Zilla Parishad, Gondia restraining the Zilla Parishad from

terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance of the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 12.11.2013.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was

appointed as a Primary School Teacher on 28.01.1991 in Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara on a post earmarked for the open category. The petitioner

was then absorbed in Zilla Parishad, Gondia in the year 1999. It is

stated that Zilla Parishad, Gondia wrongly considered the appointment

of the petitioner on a post reserved for the nomadic tribes. It is stated

that since the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the

open category in Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, he ought to have been

absorbed in Zilla Parishad, Gondia on a post meant for the open

category only. It is stated that though the caste claim of the petitioner

was not required to be sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification,

Zilla Parishad, Gondia had wrongfully sent the caste claim of the

petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying whether the

petitioner belongs to 'Kahar' tribe which is included in the nomadic

tribes. The Scrutiny Committee had initially granted a Caste Validity

Certificate to the petitioner but, on certain complaints, the case of the

3 J-WP-6920-13.odt

petitioner was reopened by the Scrutiny Committee and by the order of

the Scrutiny Committee, dated 12.11.2013, the Scrutiny Committee

invalidated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Kahar' tribe that

is included in the nomadic tribes. The petitioner had admitted before

the Scrutiny Committee that the caste of the petitioner is not 'Kahar' as

claimed but, it is 'Kalar' which falls in the Other Backward Classes. The

petitioner has not challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee

invalidating his caste claim and has only sought the protection of his

services by restraining Zilla Parishad, Gondia from terminating the

services of the petitioner on the basis of the order of the Scrutiny

Committee.

Shri Charpe, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Bhandara

on the post earmarked for the open category and therefore, the Zilla

Parishad, Gondia was not justified in referring the caste claim of the

petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. It is submitted that

the Zilla Parishad, Gondia, where the petitioner was absorbed in the

year 1999 could not have treated the petitioner to have been appointed

on a post meant for the nomadic tribes. It is submitted that before the

Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner had admitted that the petitioner

belongs to 'Kalar' Caste which falls in the Other Backward Classes,

though initially the petitioner had made the claim that he belongs to

4 J-WP-6920-13.odt

'Kahar' tribe which falls in the nomadic tribes. It is submitted that the

services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the

Judgments, reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1, 2008 (6) Bombay Cases

Reporter 190 and 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 467. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was appointed before

1995, the services of the petitioner need to be protected in view of the

Judgments in the case of Milind Katware (supra) and Arun Sonawane

(supra).

Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee has denied the claim of

the petitioner. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has recorded

a clear finding that the petitioner had manipulated the old school

record pertaining to the petitioner and there was scratching and over-

writing in the original school admission register. It is submitted that the

Vigilance Cell had conducted an enquiry in the caste claim of the

petitioner and it was found that some entries pertaining to the caste of

the petitioner were changed in the original register by scratching and

overwriting. It is submitted that the judgments in the case of Milind

Katware and Arun Sonawane would not apply to the case in hand as the

petitioner had fraudulently sought the benefits meant for the 'Kahar'

tribe which is included in the Nomadic Tribes.

5 J-WP-6920-13.odt

Shri Kapgate, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 has also denied the claim of the petitioner. The learned

counsel took this Court through the reply filed by Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara in Writ Petition No.1450/2015 filed by the petitioner for a

declaration that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for

the open category to submit that Zilla Parishad, Bhandara has clearly

denied the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed on a post

meant for the open category. It is submitted that Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara has taken a clear stand in Writ Petition No.1450/2015 that

the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the Nomadic

Tribes. It is submitted that even before Zilla Parishad, Gondia, the

petitioner had claimed to belong to 'Kahar' Tribe which is included in

the Scheduled Tribes and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred

by the Zilla Parishad to the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that since

some observations are made by the Scrutiny Committee in regard to the

fraud practiced by the petitioner in securing the benefits meant for the

Nomadic Tribes, the prayer made by the petitioner for the protection of

his services needs to be rejected. It is stated that the petitioner was not

only appointed on the post meant for the Nomadic Tribes but the

petitioner was also granted promotion on the basis of his caste claim.

6 J-WP-6920-13.odt

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit-in-

reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the claim of the

petitioner that he was appointed on a post meant for the open category

is false. The petitioner appears to have been appointed on a post

earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes. In the previous writ petition filed by

the petitioner, bearing Writ Petition No.1450/2015, Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara had filed a reply stating therein that the petitioner was not

appointed on a post earmarked for the open category and his

appointment was made on the post meant for the Nomadic Tribes. The

petitioner was absorbed in Zilla Parishad, Gondia on a post meant for

the Nomadic Tribes. The petitioner's services in Zilla Parishad, Gondia

were considered to be on a post meant for the Nomadic Tribes. The

petitioner did not raise any objection before the Zilla Parishad, Gondia

in the year 1999 or even thereafter that the petitioner could not be

absorbed on a post meant for the Nomadic Tribes. It is apparent that the

petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the Nomadic Tribes and

therefore, he did not raise any objection in regard to the same till his

caste claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by the order

dated 12/11/2013. After the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim

of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Kahar' Tribe, the petitioner has filed

the instant petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner was

7 J-WP-6920-13.odt

appointed on a post earmarked for the open category. The claim of the

petitioner in this regard is false and is an afterthought as had it been so,

the petitioner would have sought such a declaration when the Zilla

Parishad, Gondia considered his appointment on a post meant for the

Nomadic Tribes. We find that the petitioner was not only appointed on

a post meant for the Nomadic Tribes but was also promoted on the

claim that belongs to the Nomadic Tribes.

Normally, we could have protected the services of the

petitioner as the initial appointment of the petitioner pertains to the

year 1999. However, the second condition laid down by the Full Bench

of this Court in the case of Arun Sonawane (supra) is not satisfied in the

case of the petitioner and the services of the petitioner cannot be

protected. In view of the Judgment in the case of Arun Sonawane

(supra), the services of an employee appointed before the cut off date

could be protected after the invalidation of his caste claim only if there

is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the

claimant had fraudulently claimed the benefits meant for the caste or

tribe to which he claimed to belong. On a reading of the order of the

Scrutiny Committee, it appears that there are adverse observations

against the conduct of the petitioner while securing the benefits meant

for the 'Kahar' Nomadic Tribe. Though the petitioner's caste claim was

sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee in the late nineties, the

8 J-WP-6920-13.odt

petitioner had never objected to the same. Earlier, a Caste Validity

Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005. The

petitioner continued to represent to the Scrutiny Committee that he

belongs to 'Kahar' Nomadic Tribe till he gave up the caste claim before

the Scrutiny Committee in the year 2013 when the Scrutiny Committee

was re-verifying the caste claim of the petitioner on the basis of the

complaints made against the petitioner in respect of the fraud played by

the petitioner while securing the Caste Validity Certificate. It appears

that not only was the petitioner appointed on a post meant for the

Nomadic Tribes but the petitioner continued to claim that he belongs to

Nomadic Tribes till the year 2013, when he admitted for the first time

before the Scrutiny Committee in 2013 that he belongs to 'Kalar' Caste,

which is included in the Other Backward Classes and that he does not

belong to 'Kahar' Tribe. We find on a reading of the order of the

Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has manipulated the school

admission register. There is scratching and over-writing in the

admission register pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner could not

explain the interpolation in the original admission register of the school

on the basis of which the Transfer Certificate and the School Leaving

Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Since it is a case of

fraud, the Judgments in the case of Milind Katware and Arun Sonawane

(supra) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for seeking the

protection of his services.

9 J-WP-6920-13.odt

Since the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be

granted, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Since the petitioner is still in service, the prayer made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner for continuing the interim

relief for a period of six weeks is granted.

                      JUDGE                                     JUDGE

 Choulwar