Archana D/O Shankarrao Bayaskar vs The State Of Maharashtra & 5 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2405 Bom

                                1                                         wp3387.00




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2000


 Archana d/o Shankarrao Bayaskar,
 Aged about 29 years, 
 Occupation - Service, 
 Resident of C/o Head Master, Zilla
 Parishad Primary School, Chandur, 
 District - Akola.                                      ....       PETITIONER

                     VERSUS

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary, 
     Tribal Welfare Department, 
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2) The Chairman,
     Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
     of Tribal Claims, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
     Giripeth, Nagpur.

 3) The Chief Executive Officer,
     Zilla Parishad, Akola.

 4) Block Development Officer,
     Panchayat Samiti, Akola. 

 5) Head Master,
     Zilla Parishad Primary Marathi School,
     Chandur, District Akola. 

 6) Smt. Seems Vyas,                -   (Deleted as per 
     Chief Executive Officer,           Order dated 08-05-2017)
     Zilla Parishad, Akola.                         ....  RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2017 00:11:36 :::
                                        2                                          wp3387.00




 ______________________________________________________________

            Shri N.R. Pathrabe, Advocate for the petitioner, 
             Smt. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
                                            N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATED : 8 MAY, 2017.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner,

seeks leave to delete respondent No.6.

Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the

petitioner.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 26-09-1992 as an

Assistant Teacher with the respondent-Zilla Parishad from the

Scheduled Tribe category as it is claimed by her that she belongs to

Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. On 5th October, 2000 respondent No.3 has terminated the

services of the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has

3 wp3387.00

failed to produce caste validity in her favour.

5. Based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in

the matter of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra

and others reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 and the judgment of the

Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and

others reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1, Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned

Counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the appointment of

the petitioner is prior to 2000, the petitioner is entitled for protection

in service.

6. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to

dispute the claim for want of validity, however, having regard to the

law laid down in the above referred two judgments cited supra, in our

opinion, a case for grant of protection of service is made out,

particularly when the fact is not disputed that the appointment of the

petitioner is made on 29-06-1992 i.e. prior to the judgment of the

Milind Katware (cited supra).

7. The order of invalidation of the tribe claim of the

petitioner does not speak of the claim being false or bogus. The caste

4 wp3387.00

certificate was not found to be based on any false or bogus claim. The

appointment of the present petitioner on 29-06-1992 was final before

the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Milind cited

Supra.

8. In view of above undisputed factual position, the claim put

forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner restricting the prayer to

the extent only grant of protection, in our opinion, needs to be allowed

on a condition that the present petitioner shall furnish an undertaking

that the petitioner or her progeny shall not claim any benefit out of the

caste claim of the present petitioner as Thakur Scheduled Tribe or she

shall not claim any further benefits based on her caste claim during her

life time.

9. In view thereof, it is clear that the services of the present

petitioner are protected subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking

that the petitioner or its progeny shall not claim any benefits out of the

claim that they are belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe including a

service and education benefits. Such undertaking be filed before this

Court within a period of six weeks from today.

5 wp3387.00

With the above observations, the petition is partly

allowed.

                                 JUDGE                                 JUDGE
adgokar