Vanita Mahadeorao Nimje vs Joint Commissioner And Vice- ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3602 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-5483-15.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5483 OF 2015

 Vanita Mahadeorao Nimje,
 Aged about : 47 years,
 Occ. Service, R/o Samta Nagar,
 Phase-2, Mendha Road,
 Bhandara.                                                        ..... PETITIONER

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

 1. Joint Commissioner &
    Vice-Chairman,
    Scheduled Tribe Caste 
    Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
    Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
    Giripeth, Nagpur.

 2. Deputy Director,
    Health Services,
    Nagpur Division,
    Nagpur.

 3. District Civil Surgeon,
    General Hospital,
    Bhandara.                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 None for the petitioner.
 Smt. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

23/06/2017.

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

By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of

her services in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court

2 J-WP-5483-15.odt

in the Judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.

The petitioner was appointed as a Nurse on the post

reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 30/03/2000 in the services of the

respondents. Since the petitioner had claimed to belong to Halba

Scheduled Tribe, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the

Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee has

invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated

24/08/2015. The petitioner has sought the protection of her services in

view of the Judgment of the Full Bench.

It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner

was appointed before the cut off date, on 30/03/2000 and since there is

no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the

petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Halba

Scheduled Tribe, it would be necessary to protect the services of the

petitioner on the post of Nurse. It is stated that since both the

conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection

of services in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015

(1) Mh.L.J. 457, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the

services of the petitioner need to be protected. It is submitted that since

in one of the documents pertaining to the relative of the petitioner, the

caste was recorded as Koshti and not Halbas, the petitioner had

3 J-WP-5483-15.odt

admitted before the Scrutiny Committee that she belongs to Koshti caste

and not Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that there is no adverse

observation against the petitioner in the order of the Scrutiny

Committee except that the petitioner could not prove her caste claim.

On a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ

petition, specially the appointment order of the petitioner and the order

of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner

need to be protected, on the post of Nurse. The petitioner appears to

have been appointed before the cut off date, on 30/03/2000. Before the

Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner made a statement that she belongs

to Koshti caste and not Halba Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the

petitioner stated so, as in certain documents pertaining to the relatives

of the petitioner, 'Koshti' was recorded in the caste column. There is no

observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner

had fabricated, manipulated or interpolated the documents. In the

absence of any such finding against the petitioner in the order of the

Scrutiny Committee, the services of the petitioner need to be protected

as she was appointed before the cut off date and she has worked with

the respondent for more than 17 years.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons

recorded in the Judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1)

4 J-WP-5483-15.odt

Mh.L.J. 457, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are

directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of Nurse

only on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in

this Court and before the respondent Nos.2 and 3, within four weeks

that the petitioner would not seek the benefits meant for the Halba

Scheduled Tribe, in future.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                   JUDGE




 Choulwar