Bombay High Court
Dipa D/O Rameshchandra Hamand ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0305WP5975.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5975 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Dipa d/o Rameshchandra Hamand
[Mrs.Dipa Rajesh Sarurkar], Aged about 43
years, Occ. Service as Anganwadi Supervisor,
Resident of Bhiwapur 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. Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Child
Development) Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
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 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 03.05.2017
0305WP5975.13-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
28/10/1999 and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny
committee that the petitioner had fraudulently claimed the benefits
meant for the Banjara Vimukta Jati. It is stated that the caste claim of
0305WP5975.13-Judgment 3/4
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
anganwadi supervisor 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 and 2, 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 the 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
anganwadi supervisor, need to be protected as the petitioner was
appointed before the cut-off date on 28/10/1999 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 the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, as
0305WP5975.13-Judgment 4/4
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-zilla parishad is directed to protect the services
of the petitioner on the post of anganwadi supervisor on the condition
that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this court and before the
Zilla Parishad Chandrapur 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
