Sau. Archana Baburao Hinge vs Education Officer (Secondary), ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2157 Bom

                                                                                                          wp.5841.13

                                                            1



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

WRIT PETITION NO.5841/2013

Sau. Archana Baburao Hinge Aged about 38 years, occu: service R/o Plot No.12, Gaurav Nagar, Parsoda, Post K K Nagar, Tah.Ramtek Dist. Nagpur. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) Education Officer (Sec) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

2)        Jivan Vikas Education society 
          Siraspeth, Nagpur 
          Through  its Secretary,
          Shri Rajendra Zade

3)        The Headmaster, 
          Navpratibha High School, 
          Dahegaon  Joshi, Post: Dahegaon Joshi 
          Tah.Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur. 

4)        Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny 
          Committee,Nagpur Division, 
          Civil Lines, Nagpur.                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 4 ...........................................................................................................................

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ .

                                                    DATED :       3  May, 2017
                                                                    rd





                                                                                 wp.5841.13

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of her termination,

dated 23.09.2013, and seeks a declaration that her services cannot be

terminated as an Assistant Teacher for want of caste validity certificate that she

belongs to 'Nomadic Tribes'.

Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

since the petitioner was not appointed on a post earmarked for the Nomadic

Tribes, the respondents were not justified in asking the petitioner to produce

the caste validity certificate. It is stated that the impugned order of termination

is passed by the respondent-Management, as the petitioner was not able to

produce the necessary documents to prove the claim that she belongs to

Nomadic Tribes. It is submitted that the Management was not justified in

asking the petitioner to produce the caste validity certificate as the petitioner

was appointed on a post that was not reserved for the Nomadic Tribes.

Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.4-Scrutiny

Committee states that the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on a

post meant for the open category is not correct, as the petitioner has admitted

in the documents that are annexed to the Writ Petition and that were

communicated to the Management, that the petitioner was appointed on a

post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes. It is submitted that merely because

wp.5841.13

the petitioner does not possess the documents to prove her caste claim and is

not able to submit them to the Management for getting her caste claim

scrutinised, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed on an open

post.

On a reading of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, especially

the document at Annexure III, ie, a communication addressed by the

petitioner to the Headmaster dated 24.09.2012, it appears that the petitioner

was appointed on a post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes and the petitioner

had earlier admitted the said position. It would, therefore, be necessary for the

petitioner to submit the claim of belonging to Nomadic Tribes to the Scrutiny

Committee by an online application, as per the recent policy. It would be

necessary for the petitioner to get her caste claim verified from the Scrutiny

Committee and in case it is invalidated, the petitioner may seek the

appropriate relief.

Hence, in the circumstances of the case, since the petitioner appears

to have been appointed on a post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes, we

dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit her

caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee within one month and intimate the said

fact to the respondent-Management. We direct the Scrutiny Committee to

decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and positively

within fifteen months. The services of the petitioner may remain protected till

wp.5841.13

her caste claim is decided. If the petitioner does not submit her caste claim to

the Scrutiny Committee within the time specified, the Management or the

Scrutiny Committee may being this fact to the notice of this Court and/or the

Management may terminate the services of the petitioner for not doing the

needful.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of the Writ

Petition. Rule is made absolute, with no order as to costs.

               JUDGE                                  JUDGE

sahare