Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Madhukarrao Kadam vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 30 March, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp5176.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5176 OF 2016
Rajesh s/o. Madhukarrao Kadam,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. At Post Kavthal, Tq.
Mangrulpir, District Washim. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Washim.
2. The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Manora,
District Washim.
3. The Headmaster,
Zilla Parishad, Primary School,
Singdoh, Panchayat Samiti,
Manora, District Washim.
4. Zilla Parishad,
Hingoli, Distt. Hingoli,
Through its Chief Executive Officer.
5. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
(Social Welfare Department),
Amravati, Through its Secretary. ........... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2017 00:41:05 :::
2 wp5176.16.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.P.B.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Amol Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 4.
Mr.D.P.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.5.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI
& A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 30.3.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed in the year
1996 in Zilla Parishad, Parbhani as an Assistant Teacher and came to
be transferred to Zilla Parishad, Washim in the year 2002 on his own
request.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Zilla
Parishad, Washim was under impression that the petitioner was
appointed as a Other Backward Class candidate and therefore, Zilla
Parishad, Washim had sought an information from Zilla Parishad,
3 wp5176.16.odt
Parbhani as to under what category the petitioner was appointed. The
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani erroneously informed that the petitioner was
appointed in the Other Backward Class category. The petitioner did
not submit Validity Certificate and therefore, his services came to be
terminated on 27.7.2016. Hence, the petitioner has approached this
Court.
4. Mr.Amol Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Zilla Parishad, Washim submits that, in the roster maintained by
the Divisional Commissioner's Office at Aurangabad, it is noticed that
the petitioner is appointed from the Other Backward Class Category
and as such, the petitioner ought to have got his claim validated from
the concerned Scrutiny Committee.
5. In any case, the petitioner has now rendered 21 years' of
service and even if his claim is invalidated, he would be entitled to
protection of his service in view of the Full Bench Judgment in the
case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32 and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.5297 OF 2013,)
4 wp5176.16.odt
reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. We, therefore, find that, at this
stage, it will be an exercise in futility requiring the petitioner to
undergo to the rigour of scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee.
6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we, therefore, direct
respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks from
today and treat the petitioner as a candidate belonging to the open
category. It is made clear that though the petitioner would be entitled
to continue in service, he will not be entitled to any backwages for the
period during which he was out of employment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
