Bharatsingh Chunnisingh ... vs Samarth New Education Society & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2979 Bom

                                                                                                           wp.3056.00

                                                             1



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

WRIT PETITION NO.3056/2000

Bharatsingh Chunnisingh Jakhanawat occu: service, original R/o Belona Tah. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur Junior Clerk, Fulchur High School Fulchur, Tah. & Dist. Gondia. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) Shri Samarth New Education society Gondia, Tah.& Dist. Gondia Through the Secretary Governing Council

2) Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. M.V.Samarth, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.S.Rao, Asst.Government Pleader for Respondent no.2. ............................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    R.K.DESHPANDE &
                                                                    MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                     DATED :       8  June,   2017
                                                                     th



ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER R.K.DESHPANDE,  J.)

The petitioner was initially appointed in the School run by

the respondent no.1 as Laboratory Assistant,on 12.10.1983. His

appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 12.12.1994 and

it is claimed his approval was not as a candidate belonging to Scheduled

wp.3056.00

Tribe category, but as a candidate from open category. The petitioner

was granted promotion on the post of Junior Clerk on 23.01.1989 and

this appointment was approved on 24.09.1990 by the Competent

Authority. Since then, the petitioner was working on such a post.

2. On reference to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification

of Tribe Claim, Nagpur, the claim of the petitioner for "Thakur"

Scheduled Tribe, was not established and, accordingly, it was rejected by

the said Committee by an order dated 29.06.2000, which is the subject-

matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

3. This petition was filed in the year 2000 when the petitioner

was about 42-years of age and, by now, the petitioner must have

attained the age of 59-years. There is no finding recorded by the Scrutiny

Committee that the claim of the petitioner for "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe

was fraudulent or was obtained by misrepresentation. We have gone

through the return filed by the respondent no.2-Committee. The

respondent no.1-society, who is the employer of the petitioner, has not

filed any return. The averments of the petitioner in the petition that his

appointment was from open category, has not been controverted. We

wp.3056.00

cannot accept mere denial of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the

claim of the petitioner that he was appointed from general category. The

Scrutiny Committee is not the Competent Authority to state as to

whether the petitioner was appointed as a candidate belonging to

Scheduled Tribe category or from open category. In view of the above,

we do not find that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee can

come in the way of the petitioner to claim the benefit of protection in

service as a candidate belonging to general category.

4. Be that as it may, in view of the decision of the Full Bench

of this Court, in case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015(1)Mh.L.J.457, the

petitioner shall be entitled to protection even if it is assumed that he

has failed to establish his claim for "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe and that he

was appointed from the category of Scheduled Tribe.

5. The Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, with no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                                 JUDGE
sahare