Bombay High Court
Suresh Chandrabhan Watade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 14387.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14387 OF 2017
Suresh Chandrabhan Watade,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.: Kardilevasti, Miri Road,
Shevgaon, Taluka: Shevgaon,
District : Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Ministry of Triable Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division,
Nasik
3. The Collector, Ahmednagar (Revenue),
District: Ahmednagar
4. Sub Divisional Officer Pathardi
Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmedngar .. Respondents
Shri Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 24 th January, 2018
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:23:17 :::
2 wp 14387.17
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially
proposal seeking validity / tribe claim was forwarded to the
committee in the year - 2007. Thereafter, it was returned back
on the ground that nomenclature of the tribe was incorrectly
stated. Subsequently, it is again re-submitted by the employer
on 1.4.2016 to the committee. The same is not yet decided.
However, notice has been issued to the petitioner to submit the
validity or else the services of the petitioner would be
terminated.
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner has been
appointed from reserved category, as such is required to submit
the validity within stipulated period.
4. To get the proceedings decided within stipulated period is
not in the hands of the litigants. Of course, the petitioner has
also to cooperate in expeditious disposal of the proceeding.
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:23:17 :::
3 wp 14387.17
5. Considering the fact that validation proceeding is pending
we pass the following order-
ORDER
I] The respondent No. 2 - committee shall decide the
validation proceeding in respect of the tribe claim of the
petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of
nine (9) months.
II] The petitioner shall co-operate in expeditious
disposal of the proceeding.
III] The petitioner shall appear before the committee on
5th February, 2018.
IV] The impugned notice is quashed and set aside.
V] The respondent employer shall not take adverse
action against the petitioner only on the ground that
validation proceeding is pending.
VI] The respondent employer can take further course of
action depending upon the Judgment that will be delivered
by the committee in the validation proceeding.
4 wp 14387.17
VII] In case the petitioner seeks unnecessary
adjournments, then the employer can raise the grievance
about the same.
6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe/Jan.18
