Bombay High Court
Ku. Shubhangi D/O Rameshchandra ... vs State Of Maha. Through Its ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0305WP5976.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5976 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ku.Shubhangi d/o Rameshchandra Hamand
[Mrs.Shubhangi Rahul Kukdapawar], Aged
about 36 years, Occ. Service as Assistant
Teacher in Government Ashram School at
Devada, Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur,
Resident of Kotwali Ward, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Ministry of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032.
2. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.2, Nagpur Division
Chandrapur, Government Milk Scheme
Road, Jainagar, Chandrapur, through its
Member-Secretary.
3. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Nagpur.
4. Secondary Head Master, Government
Secondary and Higher Secondary Ashram
School, Devada, Tahsil Rajura, District
Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Kunal Nalamwar, counsel h/f Mr. N.C.Phadnis,
counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N.P.Mehta, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 03.05.2017
0305WP5976.13-Judgment 2/4
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the
order of the scrutiny committee, the order of her termination based on
the order of the scrutiny committee and had also made some other
ancillary prayers in the writ petition. However, it is stated on behalf of
the petitioner, that the petitioner has given up the prayers made in
prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C) and by deleting the said prayers, the
petitioner wishes to incorporate the prayer pertaining to the protection
of the petitioner's service, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench,
reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Sonone v. State of
Maharashtra). In view of the prayer made by the petitioner, the
petitioner is permitted to delete prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C) and
add the prayer pertaining to the protection of the services of the
petitioner. The amendment should be carried out forthwith.
2. Shri Nalamwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
states that the services of the petitioner need to be protected in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457,
inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date on
15/07/2000 and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny
committee that the petitioner had fraudulently claimed the benefits
0305WP5976.13-Judgment 3/4
meant for the Banjara Vimukta Jati. It is stated that the caste claim of
the petitioner was invalidated because in some of the documents
pertaining to the petitioner and his relatives, the caste was recorded as
Banjara. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed as an
assistant teacher before the cut-off date and there is no observation in
the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Banjara Vimukta Jati, the petitioner's
services need to be protected.
3. Mrs.Joshi, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, does not dispute the
position of law as laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment reported
in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. It is submitted that in view of the law laid
down by this court, an appropriate order could be passed.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner as also the impugned
order, it appears that the services of the petitioner on the post of
assistant teacher, need to be protected as the petitioner was appointed
before the cut-off date on 15/07/2000 and there is no observation in
the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently
secured the benefits meant for the Banjara Vimukta Jati. It appears that
0305WP5976.13-Judgment 4/4
the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, as the petitioner could
not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking
the protection of service stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the
relief of protection of services needs to be granted.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent No.4-ashram school is directed to protect the
services of the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher on the
condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this court and
before the respondent No.4-ashram school within four weeks that the
petitioner would not seek the benefits meant for the Banjara Vimukta
Jati, in future. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
