Bombay High Court
Shri Ganesh Vithoba Nagpure vs Shri Santaji Shikshan Vikas ... on 24 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp356.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 356 OF 2017.
Shri Ganesh Vithoba Nagpure,
Aged about 52 years, Occupation -
Assistant Teacher, Santaji High
School, Chikna, resident of Plot
No.11, Sahakar Nagar, Kharbi
Road, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Shri Santaji Shikshan Vikas Sanstha
Nagpur, through its President Shri
Dinesh Govindrao Wanjari, resident
of Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur.
2. The Headmaster, Santaji High School
Chinka, Post Salki (Godhani),
Tahsil and District Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Seconary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur/ Divisional Social Welfare
Officer, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 00:19:37 :::
Judgment wp356.17
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. N. Rao, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 24, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri N. Rao,
learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4. By their consent, Writ Petition
is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable
forthwith.
2. Petitioner who secured employment by pointing out that he
belongs to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste, is before this Court alleging that he has
given up that caste claim and is claiming to belong to 'Sutar' Other
Backward Class. The caste certificate accordingly has been obtained by him
and as such, he should be protected in employment. Support is being taken
Judgment wp356.17
from Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2015 in Writ
Petition No. 3729/2014 and others connected matters. Petitioner states
that his caste claim as belonging to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class should be
allowed to be verified expeditiously and till then he should be reinstated in
employment.
3. Shri B.H. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.
1 and 2 and Shri N. Rao, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent
nos. 3 and 4 are opposing any intervention. They point out that having
secured employment as a person belonging to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste, in
terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in case of Arun
Vishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and ors (2015 (1) Mh.L.J.
457), verification has to be of that claim, and if while obtaining that caste
certificate or then employment, any fraud or tampering is found to be
committed, the benefit of protection cannot be given.
4. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that after attending
majority and in the year 1993, petitioner has secured caste certificate as a
person belonging to Scheduled Caste.
5. We have perused Division Bench judgment dated 12.02.2015
Judgment wp356.17
(supra). There the Court was not required to look into such facts. The
petitioners already had obtained a certificate as belonging to Special
Backward Class. Therein original certificates were as persons belonging to
Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe and later on that candidate has been
recognized as Special Backward Class from 15.06.1995. They opted to be
treated as Other Backward Class. Observations in paragraph no.8 take note
of the fact that Scrutiny Committee has found them as persons belonging to
Special Backward Class. The observations in paragraph no.7 show that the
Division Bench note the issue involved and observe that controversy whether
persons, who initially claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and
subsequently gjve up that claim or restrict it to Special Backward Class, are
entitled to protection of their services or not, did not directly fall for
consideration before the Full Bench (supra).
6. In present facts it is a specific contention of respondents that
earlier records of petitioner mention caste as 'Sutar' and it has been then
altered to 'Balai' and caste certificate has been obtained.
7. As per the law laid down by the Full Bench, a person who has
obtained caste certificate, found invalid later on, can be protected not only
because he belongs to Special Backward Class recognized as such later on
Judgment wp356.17
but, if he has not played any fraud while obtaining caste certificate and
records are not found to be tampered with at his instance. Here,
explanation of petitioner is his elder brother brought him to Nagpur and
while admitting him in school at Nagpur, he changed caste from Sutar to
Balai, by obtaining orders of education officer.
8. Correctness of this story or then whether in 1993 petitioner was
under bonafide belief that he belongs to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste and was not
aware of his status as 'Sutar', are all disputed questions. These questions can
be answered by the Scrutiny Committee, after proper vigilance assistance. If
no fraud is found to be committed by the petitioner at any point of time,
then the petitioner can be given protection in employment and change of
stance that he is giving up caste claim and should be recognized as Sutar,
(OBC) may not be decisive in that event.
9. Here the School Tribunal reinstated the petitioner way back in the
year 2011, subject to petitioner obtaining proper validity. Management
thereafter had reinstated him and in 2013, instead of submitting validity he
gave documents to show that he belong to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class.
That caste claim has been forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee.
Judgment wp356.17
10. In this situation, as petitioner has already been terminated, we
direct respondent no.4 Committee to expedite the verification process and
to find out whether any fraud was played when petitioner obtained caste
certificate showing that he belongs to Balai, Scheduled Caste.
Simultaneously, the Scrutiny Committee may also examine his caste claim as
person belonging to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of one year. If answer is in favour of petitioner,
we grant petitioner leave to approach this Court again and seek protection
in employment.
11. With these observations and directions, we dispose of the Writ
Petition. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
