Pooja Vinayakrao Dasre vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 255 Bom

                                     1                                  wp 360.18

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 360 OF 2018

          Pooja D/o Vinayakrao Dasre,
          Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Service,
          R/o Telangwadi, Tq. Kandhar,
          Dist. Nanded.                                  ..    Petitioner

                   Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Secretary to Tribal
          Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2.       The Scheduled Tribe Certificates
          Verification Committee, Aurangabad
          Through its Deputy Director (R),
          Aurangabad.

 3.       The Collector Kolhapur,
          Dist. Kolhapur.                                ..    Respondents

 Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                           CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                      ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ.
                               DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2018.

 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

 .        Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     The   learned 
 Assistant   Government   Pleader   accepts   notice   of   rule   for   all 




::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018                    ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:15:15 :::
                                             2                                    wp 360.18

 respondents.     Taken   up   for   final   hearing   with   the   consent   of 
 parties.


 2.       Validation proceeding  in respect of the tribe claim of the 
 petitioner   as   belonging   to   Mannervarlu   (Scheduled   Tribe)   is 
 pending   with   the   respondent   No.   2/Scrutiny   Committee.     The 
 same   was   invalidated   on   the   ground   of   spelling   mistake   in 
 recording the name of the tribe in the certificate issued by the 
 Sub Divisional Officer.   Subsequently on 09th  August, 2017 the 
 petitioner   had   obtained   fresh   corrected   certificate   and   has 
 submitted it afresh to the Committee on 22 nd  August, 2017.   In 
 the interregnum the employer has issued notice to the petitioner 
 to submit  the validity certificate, else adverse action would  be 
 taken against the petitioner.


 3.       It   is   not   in   the   hands   of   a   litigant   to   get   the   validation 
 proceeding   decided   within   a   stipulated   period.     Of   course,   the 
 petitioner   has   to   co-operate   in   expeditious   disposal   of   the 
 proceeding.


 4.       Considering   the   aforesaid   conspectus,   we   pass   following 
 order.


                                       O R D E R

A. The respondent No. 2/Committee shall decide the

3 wp 360.18

validation proceeding in respect of tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (09) months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

B. The petitioner shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of said proceeding. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 30.01.2018.

C. The impugned notice issued by the employer is quashed and set aside.

D. The respondent No. 3/employer shall not take any action against the petitioner only on the ground that validation proceeding is pending.

E. Of course, the employer is at liberty to take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in validation proceeding.

F. Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

          Sd/-                              Sd/-
 [ARUN M. DHAVALE, J.]           [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]


 bsb/Jan. 17