Bombay High Court
Mrs Neelima Narayan Waidande @ ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 May, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 911-wp-11441-2015.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11441 OF 2015
Mrs. Neelima Narayan Waidande @
Kum. Shaila Kisanrao Gaikwad .... Petitioner
vs
1 State of Maharashtra
2 Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1
3 Zilla Parishad, Nashik .... Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Komal Gaikwad for the petitioner.
Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP for State/Respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Abhijit Patil for Mr. Ajay S. Patil for respondent No.3.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ.
DATE : May 04, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta,J.):
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of parties.
2 The Petitioner, who is Christian by birth married to one Mr.
Narayan Shivram Waidande, who belongs to "Mang" caste which is
recognised as Scheduled Caste (SC) under the Presidential Order
passed under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution of India.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:47:04 :::
dgm 2 911-wp-11441-2015.sxw
3 A couple certificate was issued by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Nasik on 4.08.1983. Based upon the same, the Petitioner
was appointed by Respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad under the reserved
category of S.C. The Petitioner was promoted in open category
(handicap). She was promoted again in the year 2013.
4 By order dated 13.08.2014, Respondent No.2-Committee
invalidated and confiscated the couple certificate. The Petitioner,
therefore, approached to this Court in view of the apprehension of
termination of service. The Petitioner has been in service till this date.
5 An undertaking is placed on record by the Petitioner on
24.04.2017 and has claimed the protection based upon the Full Bench
judgment in Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra 1 with
the undertaking that she is giving up her caste claim, based upon the
couple certificate and further that she would not claim any benefits for
the stated caste in future, while in employment with Respondent
No.3. The undertaking is part of the record. The learned counsel for
Respondent No.3 submits, on instructions, that in view of this
undertaking, they are willing to continue her service.
6 Even otherwise, considering the judgments which are
1 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:47:04 :::
dgm 3 911-wp-11441-2015.sxw
listed below, of this Court, while dealing with the similar situation,
based upon the effect of invalidation of the couple caste certificate
and the scheme, ultimately has protected the services of such persons.
1) Writ Petition No.8212/2004-Smt. Fatima Froes Sadavarte
alias Fatima Sukurina Froes vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on
23.11.2004.
2) Writ Petition No.3583/2003-Mrs. Vandana Vishwanath Londhe v.
The State of Maharashtra & ors., decided on 4.7.2003.
7 In view of above, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is
not pressing prayers (a) and (b). However, submitted to grant prayer
clause (c).
8 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in view of
the admitted facts and the reasons so recorded in the above
judgments, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by
the following order :
ORDER
(a) The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (c)
dgm 4 911-wp-11441-2015.sxw
which reads thus:
"(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing
the Respondent No.3 Zilla Parishad to protect the
service of the Petitioner on the present post occupied
by her pursuant to the judgments and orders passed by
this Honble Court in the cases of Fatima Froes
Sadavarde, Vandana Londe."
(b) Rule made absolute accordingly.
(c) No costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
