Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Lacchhana Bodewar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 4 October, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Order wp6906.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6906 OF 2015
Sanjay s/o. Lacchhana Bodewar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service
as Sub-Inspector, State Excise,
Check Post Deori, r/o. C/o.
Shri Katare, Ganesh Nagar,
Gondia. ... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home (State Excise),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, Nagpur
Division, through its Secretary.
3. Superintendent,
State Excise,
Gondia.
4. Commissioner,
State Excise, Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.N.C.Phadnis, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ambarish Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 01:52:17 :::
Order wp6906.15
2
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 4.10.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J) :
1. Taken out from the Final hearing Board.
2. Mr.N.C.Phadnis, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, submitted that, in view of the Division Bench Judgment
of this Court in Pramod Shivaji Shinde .vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others reported in 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 925 and specifically
following paragraph no.8 therein, this case is covered. Paragraph
no.8 reads thus :
"The issue before us is no longer res integra in the light of
the judgment of this Court dated 14-1-2016 delivered at the
Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 4185/2015, Vinodkumar
Singh Rajkumar .vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2016
MhLJ Online 10). This Court has specifically concluded that
an appointment made on compassionate basis and in the
absence of making such an appointment on a post reserved
for a particular category, such an appointment would not be
deemed to have been made as against a reserved post and as
such, the candidate so appointed would not be required to
submit a caste or tribe validity certificate. "
Order wp6906.15
3. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief, as
prayed in prayer clause (B) of the present petition, which is
reproduced as under :
"B) By passing a suitable writ order or direction it be held
and declared that the appointment of petitioner was made
on compassionate ground and not against any reserved
category and hence, verification process was itself uncalled
for. "
3. A statement is also made that, in view of above, the
petitioner is not pressing challenge to the impugned order
dt.28.10.2015 passed by respondent no.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli whereby caste certificate of the
petitioner was invalidated as belonging to "Mannewar" Scheduled
Tribe. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents conceded to this position in view of law so
referred and the fact that the petitioner was appointed on
compassionate ground and not on any reserved post.
4. Therefore, considering the above position of law and the
admitted position of facts, we are inclined to dispose of the present
Writ Petition for the same reason and in view of the Judgment so
Order wp6906.15
referred above.
5. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer
clause (B) of the present petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
No costs.
(M.G.GIRATKAR, J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J)
jaiswal
