Prashant S/O Vistari Mallelwar vs The Chief Conservator Of Forest, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 870 Bom

                                                        1                        wp3927.13.odt

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO.3927/2013

      Prashant s/o Vistari Mallewar,
      aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
      r/o Bajrang Chowk, Alapalli, 
      Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.                                .....PETITIONER

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

 1. The Chief Conservator of Forest,
    Gadchiroli Forest Division, Gadchiroli,
    Samajik Nyaya Bhavana Complex,
    Gadchiroli, Tq. Dist. Gadchiroli.

 2. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
    Alapalli Forest Division, Alapalli,
    Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.

 3. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
    Sironcha Forest Division, Sironcha.

 4. The Conservator of Forest,
    South Chandrapur Forest Circle,
    Chandrapur, Tq. Dist. Chandrapur.                             ...RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioner.
 Shri V. A. Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  CORAM:-      SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
                                               V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :-

MARCH 20, 2017

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

By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a

declaration that the petitioner is not obliged to submit caste

validity certificate as the appointment of the petitioner was not

2 wp3927.13.odt

made on a post that was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes but his

appointment was a compassionate appointment. The case of the

petitioner is that the reservation policy could not have been

applied to the petitioner as his appointment is on compassionate

ground.

The issue involved in this case stands answered in

favour of the petitioner by the judgment dated 14.01.2016 in Writ

Petition No.4185/2015. This Court has held in the said judgment

that the respondents could not have directed the petitioner to

produce the caste validity certificate as the State could not have

applied the reservation policy while making the appointment on

compassionate ground, when the State Government could not

point out any policy for applying the reservation, while making the

appointment on the compassionate ground. In this case also,

admittedly, the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground

and there is nothing on record to show that there was a policy of

the State Government to apply the reservation policy while making

appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1995, when the

petitioner was appointed.

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated

14.01.2016 in Writ Petition No.4185/2015 and the reasons

3 wp3927.13.odt

recorded hereinabove, we allow the writ petition. The impugned

order dated 10.07.2013 is quashed and set aside. The respondents

cannot remove the petitioner from the service for not producing

the caste validity certificate.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to cost.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

kahale