Bombay High Court
Irfan Ahmad Saeed Ahmad And 6 ... vs Zilla Parishad, Akola Through Its ... on 19 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3990 OF 2013
PETITIONERS :- 1] Irfan Ahmad Saeed Ahmad, Aged 38 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. Chhota Mominpura
Balapur, District Akola.
2] Sayyad Majhar Sayyad Jafar, Aged 40 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o Baluchpura, Balapur, Tah.
Balapur, District - Akola.
3] Mohd. Karmatulla Mohd. Tamijulla, Aged 36
yrs., Occ. Teacher, R/o. Taj Nagar, Balapur,
Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
4] Eqbal Husain Mohd. Husain, Aged 40 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. C/o Sayyadpura Balapur,
Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
5] Javed Ahmad Sheikh Bhuru, Aged 30 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o Vazirabad Balapur, Tah.
Balapur, District-Akola.
6] Ku.Naema Khatun Mohd. Matin, Aged 36
yrs., Occ. Teacher, r/o. C/o. Nagar
Jumichudi, Balapur, Tah. Balapur, District-
Akola.
7] Sheikh Yaseen Sheikh Baba, Aged 36 yrs.,
Occ. Teacher, R/o. C/o. Sayyad Pura,
Balapur, Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] Zilla Parishad, Akola, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Akola.
2] Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:41:00 :::
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 2/8
3] Municipal Council, Balapur, through its
Chief Officer, Distt. Akola.
4] Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.C.Madkholkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. G.G.Mishra and Mrs.Indira L. Bodade,
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent No.3.
Mr. I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 19.06.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
communication of the respondent No.3-Chief Officer, Municipal
Council, Balapur, District Akola dated 03/07/2013 asking the
petitioners to produce the documents pertaining to their caste claim for
verification or else their services would be terminated in view of the
government decision dated 18/05/2013. The petitioners have also
challenged the government decision dated 18/05/2013.
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 3/8
2. According to the petitioners, they were appointed on the
posts of shikshan sevaks that were meant for the open category. It is
the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.3-municipal council
wrongly presumed that the petitioners were appointed on the posts
meant for the reserved category and illegally asked the petitioners to
produce the caste validity certificate or the documents pertaining to
their caste claim for verification. The petitioners claimed that their
appointments were made in the open category and therefore the
municipal council could not have sought the documents pertaining to
their caste claim. The petitioners have also challenged the government
circular dated 18/05/2013 providing that the responsibility to prove
that the employees appointed from the reserved category belong to the
same category, would be of the employees and if they are not able to
submit the application for verification of their caste claim along with
the relevant documents for proving the same to the scrutiny committee,
a notice should be served on them asking them to produce the relevant
documents for verification of their caste claim or else their services
would be terminated. It is the case of the petitioners that since the
petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the open category,
the municipal council could not have asked the petitioners to produce
the documents in respect of their caste claim.
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 4/8
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were appointed on the posts meant for the open category
and were not appointed on the posts earmarked for the reserved
category. It is submitted that it was therefore not necessary for the
petitioners to either produce the caste validity certificate or to tender
the documents for the verification of their caste claim. It is submitted
that the government circular dated 18/05/2013 is bad-in-law, inasmuch
as it permits the employer to take action against the employees for their
termination if they fail to produce the requisite documents for
verification of their caste claim. It is submitted that the policy of the
State Government in this regard is arbitrary and the government
circular is liable to be set aside. It is stated that since the petitioners
were appointed in the open category, they had not submitted the
relevant documents but if this court finds that they are appointed on the
posts meant for the reserved category, this court may permit the
petitioners to submit the relevant documents within a reasonable time
and direct the respondent No.3-municipal council to refer the caste
claim of the petitioners to the scrutiny committee for verification.
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the scrutiny committee, states that as per the new policy,
it would be necessary for the petitioners to tender their application for
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 5/8
verification of their caste claim on-line in the proper format along with
the documents. It is stated that if such an application is made, the
scrutiny committee would verify the caste claim of the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, has
denied the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed on the
posts meant for the open category. It is submitted that the municipal
council has informed the zilla parishad after the appointment of the
petitioners that they are appointed on the posts meant for the reserved
category. It is submitted that the names of the petitioners were also
recommended for their appointment in the reserved category.
6. Though the respondent No.3 is not represented by a
counsel, it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondent No.3 that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed in
vimukta jatis (A) category and the appointments of the petitioner Nos.3
to 7 were made against the posts reserved for the scheduled tribes.
Certain documents are annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf
of the respondent No.3 to substantiate the said submission.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 6/8
and the documents annexed thereto, it appears that there is no merit in
the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners
were appointed on the posts meant for the open category. Though the
petitioners were appointed on the posts of shikshan sevaks, the
petitioners have not annexed their appointment orders to the writ
petition. Had the appointment orders been annexed, this court would
have noticed at the outset that the petitioners were not appointed on
the posts meant for the open category. The documents annexed to the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, clearly show
that the appointment of the petitioners was made on the posts
earmarked for the scheduled tribes and the vimukta jatis. The
respondent No.3 was justified in asking the petitioners to tender the
relevant documents pertaining to their caste claim so that their caste
claim could be verified. Instead of producing the documents, the
petitioners challenged the communication asking the petitioners to do
so. The petitioners ought to have tendered the documents in support of
their caste claim as they were appointed on the posts meant for the
reserved category.
8. We find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners that the government circular dated 18/05/2013 is bad-in-
law. The said submission is not substantiated. In any case, we do not
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 7/8
find as to how the government circular that permits the employer to
take the action of termination of services of the employee who refuses
to tender the documents for verification of his / her caste claim, though
he or she is appointed on the post earmarked for the reserved category,
is bad-in-law.
9. Be that as it may, since the petitioners are now ready to
get their caste claim verified from the competent scrutiny committee, in
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it
would be necessary to permit the petitioners to submit the applications
to the scrutiny committee (on-line) within 45 days. It would be
necessary to direct the scrutiny committee to decide the applications, if
submitted by the petitioners, within 15 months from the receipt thereof.
Since the petitioners are working since long, it would be necessary to
protect the services of the petitioners till their caste claim is decided.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The petitioners are hereby directed, in view of their request to
submit their caste claim to the scrutiny committee (on-line) for
verification within 45 days. If the application is so made, the
respondent No.4-scrutiny committee is directed to decide the caste
claim of the petitioners within 15 months from the date of receipt of the
1906WP3990.13-Judgment 8/8
same. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate action
against the petitioners, if they fail to submit the caste claim to the
scrutiny committee within the stipulated period. The services of the
petitioners are protected till their caste claim is decided. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
