Ku. Archana D/O Shalikram ... vs The Commi. For Scrutiny And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 327 Bom

                                                    1                  J-WP-5765-17.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO.5765 OF 2017

 Ku. Archana d/o Shalikram Choudhari,
 Aged : 30 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o At Post - Nachanbhatti,
 Tah. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.                           ..... PETITIONER

                               ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Committee for Scrutiny and
    Verification of Tribe Claim,
    Gadchiroli, through its Vice-Chairman,
    Gadchiroli Division, Nagar Parishad
    Sankul Gadchiroli.

 2. Appointing Authority /
    Divisional Controller,
    Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation, Kolhapur Division,
    Kolhapur.

 3. Divisional Controller,
    Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation, Kolhapur Division,
    Kolhapur.

 4. Depot Manager,
    Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation, Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.                      ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri R. D. Murkute, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri B. M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
 Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                CORAM:-    
                                            SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                             ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :

11/01/2018.

  ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK
                                              , J.)





                                                   2                 J-WP-5765-17.odt

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

her termination dated 22/07/2017. The petitioner also seeks a direction

against the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner within a time frame.

The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Conductor on a post

earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claims to belong to

the Mana Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was

referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny

Committee has not decided the caste claim of the petitioner and hence,

the petitioner could not produce the caste validity certificate within

stipulated time but the respondent Nos.2 to 4 terminated the services of

the petitioner by the order dated 22/07/2017. The petitioner has

challenged the said order and has sought a direction against the

Scrutiny Committee to decide her caste claim at the earliest.

Shri Murkute, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were not justified in

terminating the services of the petitioner when the petitioner was not at

fault in not producing the caste validity certificate and her caste claim

was pending before the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the

petitioner had submitted her caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee in

3 J-WP-5765-17.odt

the year 2013 and since the Scrutiny Committee had failed to decide

the same, the petitioner could not have been penalized.

Shri Lonare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the Scrutiny Committee states on instructions that the

caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the Scrutiny Committee

and the Scrutiny Committee would decide the same as early as possible.

Shri Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 to 4 states that the petitioner was required to produce the caste

validity certificate within six months from the date of her appointment

but since she did not produce the same, her services were terminated. It

is submitted that the termination order is passed on the basis of the

Government Resolution, dated 12th December, 2011.

We find much force in the submission made on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner cannot be penalized if the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has not decided the claim of the petitioner within the period

of six months and the petitioner is not able to produce the caste validity

certificate within the prescribed time. The claim of the petitioner is

pending before the Scrutiny Committee for more than three years and if

the Scrutiny Committee has not decided the caste claim of the

petitioner, the services of the petitioner could not have been

terminated. The action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in terminating the

services of the petitioner cannot be upheld on the basis of the

Government Resolution dated 12th December, 2011. In the

4 J-WP-5765-17.odt

circumstances of the case, since the petitioner is not at fault, the order

of the termination of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and a

direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim within a

time frame needs to be issued.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order of termination is hereby quashed and set

aside. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner

in service within one week. Since the petitioner has not worked from

the date of her termination and would not be working till the date of

her reinstatement, the petitioner would not be entitled for the salary for

the said period, though she would be entitled to the continuity in

service. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of

the petitioner within 15 months. The services of the petitioner are

protected till her caste claim is decided.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                                     JUDGE                                JUDGE


 Choulwar