Sangita Dipaksingh Chauhan ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2225 Bom

969-J-WP-2654-17                                                                              1/2


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

                         WRIT PETITION NO.2654  OF 2017


Sangita Dipaksingh Chauhan 
(Maidan name Sangita Daryaosingh Bais), 
Age about 46 years, Occ. Service, 
R/0 28-B Krishna Nagar, Kautha Road, 
Naka No.2, Kamtee Road, Nagpur.                                  ... Petitioner. 

-vs-

1.  The State of Maharashtra, 
     Through its Secretary, 
     General Administration Department, 
     Mantralaya, Mumbai. 

2.  Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sanstha,
     Nagpur, Thr. Its Secretary, 
     R/o 266, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.                               ... Respondents. 


Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. 
Shri A. R. Chutke, AGP for respondent No.1. 
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.2. 


                                                  CORAM  : B. R. GAVAI &
                                                             A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : May 04, 2017

Oral Judgment : (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned

counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 01/07/2000

against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of her claim of

969-J-WP-2654-17 2/2

belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

2. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated. However, the

petitioner does not claim any reservation against the Scheduled Tribe in the

service and further requests for protection in service on the basis of Full

Bench Judgment in case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of

Maharashtra and ors. 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 in which larger bench of this

Court has held that if a candidate has served for substantive years and where

no adverse remark has been made in the service record, he/she is entitled to

continue in service.

3. We find that the petitioner is entitled for protection in service.

Shri A. Parchure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

states that there is no adverse remark in the service record of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause

(a).

                                                       JUDGE               JUDGE




Asmita