Bombay High Court
Kum. Jaymala Shenfad Chandol And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 8 September, 2017
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7599 OF 2017
1. Kum. Rajeshri Parmeshwar Gampalwad
2. Ramchandra Pandurang Jadhav
3. Tukaram Eknath Gavli
4. Kirankumar Bhagwan Suradkar
5. Subhash Yashwant Jadhav .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7940 OF 2017
1. Kum. Jaymala Shenfad Chandol
2. Gajanan Shamrao Chandol
3. Kashinath Ramesh Jadhav
4. Kalpana Kisan Sonone .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji with Mr. Tanaji V. Jadhav i/by Mr. R.K.
Mendadkar for petitioners.
Mr. A. B. Vagyani, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. Prashant More, AGP for
State.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMMBER 08, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [ Per Naresh H. Patil, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners were appointed on 28/10/2015 as Clerk
under reserved category and they joined services of respondent no.3
-Collector, Thane on the respective dates mentioned in the petitions.
It is submitted that as the petitioners were appointed against the
vacancies reserved for backward class candidates, they were directed
to submit the Caste Validity Certificate within six months from the
date of resuming their duties as per Clause 8 of the appointment order
dated 28/10/2015. Another option given to the petitioners was to
submit an application addressed to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee - respondent no.2 for verifying the caste claim
of the employee concerned.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that as the petitioners could not submit Caste Validity
Certificate within six months from the date of resuming their duties,
the Collector, Thane i.e. respondent no.3, terminated the services of
the petitioners by passing impugned orders. The learned counsel
submits that some of the employees had submitted their validity
claim before respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee, but it is not
under their control to secure final order from respondent no.2. In
view of the heavy pendency before respondent no.2, it takes longer
time for getting final order from respondent no.2. The learned
counsel further submitted that respondent no.3 passed order by
giving reference to the conditions of appointment order and under the
provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000 (for short "the Act"). The counsel submits that the Collector is
not empowered to pass order of termination by resorting to the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on
the following judgments:
(a) Shrikant Chandrakant Saidane & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors. [2012 (4) Bom. C.R. 295].
(b) Mrs. Ruchira Manoj Bende @ Kum. Meena
Ramchandra Sonkusare vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors. [Writ Petition No. 9473 of 2014 decided
on 13/1/2015].
5. On behalf of the respondents, learned Government
Pleader Mr. A. B. Vagyani submitted that inspite of best efforts, it is
noticed that the candidates appointed on the reserved posts fail to
produce Caste Validity Certificate within six months or within
reasonable time. In some cases, the employees even fail to submit
appropriate application to be forwarded to the concerned Scrutiny
Committee. This was noticed in several cases in the State. With a
view that the employees shall submit final order passed by the
concerned Scrutiny Committee in respect of their caste claim in
time, as a last resort, the Collector had to pass order of termination
as the employees failed to submit Caste Validity Certificate or
application after assuming charge.
6. We have perused the record placed before us and
considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :-
"10. (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any
of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes of Special Backward Category
secures admission in any educational institution against
a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or
secures any appointment in the Government, local
authority or in any other Company or corporation,
owned or controlled by the Government or in any
Government aided institution or co-operative society
against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes
by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on
cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny
Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned
educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged
from the said employment forthwith and any other
benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission
or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be
withdrawn forthwith.
(2) Any amount paid to such person by the
Government or any other agency by way of scholarship,
grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be
recovered from such person as an arrears of land
revenue.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for
the time being in force, any Degree, Diploma or any
other educational qualification acquired by such person
after securing admission in any educational institution
on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently
proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on
cancellation of such Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny
Committee.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for
being a member of any statutory body if he has
contested the election for local authority, co-operative
society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for
any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category by
procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such
Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate
being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any
benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as
arrears of land revenue and the election of such person
shall be deemed to have been terminated
retrospectively."
7. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act
indicates that the Collector is not empowered to terminate services
of employees, who failed to produce Caste Validity Certificate or
failed to submit an application to be forwarded to the concerned
Scrutiny Committee after resuming their duties.
8. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to
point out any provision under the Act which enables the Collector to
terminate the services of the employee for not submitting Caste
Validity Certificate within stipulated time.
9. The next question raised is as to whether the Collector
could terminate the services of the employees in case one of the
conditions of the appointment order was violated. The said condition
relates to employees submitting an application for verification of
their caste claim. We find that in the absence of any statutory Rules /
Regulations or service conditions, the Collector would not be
empowered to pass a drastic order of terminating the services of the
employees.
10. In any case, the impugned orders have far reaching civil
consequences and in our view the Collector should have caused
inquiry before resorting to the drastic step of terminating the services
of the petitioners. Admittedly no inquiry is conducted by the
Collector and for this reason also the impugned termination orders
are unsustainable.
11. We find substance in the submission of the learned
Government Pleader that there are number of cases pending before
the concerned Scrutiny Committee. The State Government, its
departments and officers are facing difficulties as compliances are
not made by the employees in respect of their caste verification
claim. The orders of the Scrutiny Committee are not placed before
the employer and the consequences are that the employee continues
to be in service for months and years together. There is no dispute
that we are dealing with constitutional reservation and deserving
person alone is entitled to get benefit of the said reservation. It is
necessary that within reasonable time verification of caste claim
needs to be decided.
12. It is, therefore, necessary that at the highest level of the
State the issue is discussed and appropriate instructions are issued to
all the departments in this regard so that unnecessary litigation on
such issue gets curtailed and in a systematic manner State would
streamline the process of recruitment for reserved posts.
13. Needless to mention that disruption of services abruptly
by way of termination causes lot of embarrassment to the employees,
which affects their life, career. By adopting suitable method, such
situation could be avoided. The State, its departments, officers
would certainly follow some reasonable procedure in this regard.
14. One such suggestion could be to get the pro-forma form
filled in from the candidate, who is to be appointed in a reserved
post, for forwarding the same to the concerned Scrutiny Committee
while the candidate is being handed over an order of appointment so
that simultaneously both the steps could be taken i.e. (1) issuance of
appointment order and (2) obtaining an application from the
candidate along with copy of caste certificate to be forwarded to the
concerned Scrutiny Committee. Respective offices shall be entitled
to maintain the record and would correspond with the respective
Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding the progress of the caste
verification claim. In case the candidate / employee does not
cooperate in the final outcome of the caste verification claim
pending before the Scrutiny Committee, the Committee would be in a
position to inform the Collectorate or head of the department.
Instead of fastening the responsibility totally on the employees to
secure Caste Validity Certificate within six months, the State and its
departments shall also take the responsibility to supervise the process
of forwarding the applications to the concerned Caste Scrutiny
Committee and maintain the record of further progress in the matters
relating to caste scrutiny of respective candidates/employees. A
designated officer shall be entrusted with such job who shall be
maintaining the record. It is for the State to devise and explore any
other better solution, if any.
15. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary to take stock of
the situation and issue appropriate instructions to the concerned
departments through General Administration Department of the State.
The State shall also make endeavour to expedite the process of
scrutiny of caste claim of such employees on priority basis.
ORDER
(a) The impugned orders terminating services of the
petitioners are quashed and set aside.
(b) We direct that the petitioners shall be reinstated in
the employment of respondent no.3 with
consequential benefits forthwith.
(c) We direct the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee
to expedite the caste verification claim of the
petitioner pending before it and decide the same
finally as expeditiously as possible but not later
than six months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. In case any of the petitioners
/employees do not extend cooperation to the
Scrutiny Committee, we direct the Scrutiny
Committee to proceed on the available record and
pass a reasoned order.
(d) The State to intimate this order to all the concerned
departments.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
17. Registry to forward copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, the Principal Secretary, Law
and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the Collector, Thane
forthwith.
(Z. A. HAQ,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL)
