Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6031 Bom

                                                        28 wp816-21.odt


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO.816 OF 2021
                                    WITH
                INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6129 OF 2021


       Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur                   ..... Petitioner

                Vs.

       State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   ..... Respondents


       Mr.Ramchandra K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner
       Mr.S.S.Panchpor, A.G.P. for the State
       Ms.Anjali N. Helekar i/b Mr.A.A.Garge for the Respondent
       nos.3

                                    CORAM:    K.K.TATED &
                                              RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 05, 2021 P.C.

. Heard.

2. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent State fled their Affdavit in Reply dated 04.02.2021. He submits that it is specifcally stated in the said reply that it remained on the part of Committee to take into consideration the Petitioner's Caste Certifcate in Form C dated 22.07.2005 at the time of passing the fnal order. In support of this contention, he relies on paragraph no.6 and 7 of the said Affdavit in Reply which reads thus:

"6. I say that, on perusal of documents and

Mohite 1/5

28 wp816-21.odt

said order dated 22.1.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1; it appear that, the Respondent No.1 while passing the aforesaid order inadvertently, failed to consider the Caste Certifcate submitted by the Petitioner in From which is dated 22.7.2005 and relied upon the Caste Certifcate dated 28.3.2003. However, though in the order dated 22.1.2020, the reference in Caste Certifcate dated 28.3.2003 is made, the Committee passed the judgment and order dated 22.1.2020 only after considering the subsequent caste Certifcate dated 22.7.2005. I further say that the said Caste Certifcate dated 22.7.2005 is annexed to the present Writ Petition at Exh. E and by bare perusal of the said Caste Certifcate, it can be seen that the ordinary residence of the Petitioner has been shown as Ambernath, Maharashtra whereas the ordinary residence of the Petitioner's father namely Shri. Madhukar Shankar Thakur, is Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Thus, the point no. 2 of the said Form C demonstrates that the Petitioner is not ordinary resident of Ambernath as mentioned in Form C. It is further submitted that in the light of Section 20 of Representations of People Act 1950, "ordinary place" of residence has been defned, considering the said defnition r/w. Rule 5 (2) of Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verifcation of) Certifcate Rules 2003, the case of Petitioner was rejected.

7. I say that there is no any illegality and/or impropriety committed by the present Respondents while passing the said judgment and order. If the Petitioner procure the Caste Certifcate in Form C from the Competent Authority of his ordinary place of residence i.e. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, the claim of the Petitioner

Mohite 2/5

28 wp816-21.odt

would be decided on its own merits by this Respondent as and when the application in requisite format is forwarded to this Respondent for the caste validation and/or verifcation to this Respondent."

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, it is specifcally stated in the caste certifcate dated 22.07.2005 that Petitioner is originally from Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. Paragraph 4 of the said Caste Certifcate reads thus:

"4. This Certifcate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe Certifcate issue to Shri Madhukar Shankar Thakur Father of Kumar Dongarsing M. Thakur of Village/Town Bhusawal in District Jalgaon of the Maharashtra State who belongs to the Thakur Tribe which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the Maharashtra State issued by the Executive Magistrate-Bhusawal [Name of Competent Authority] vide their No.525 29/10/79."

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the present matter, this Court by order dated 27.11.2020 directed Respondent no.3 not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner. He submits that inspite of that, Respondent no.3 issued a notice of termination of service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services, Temporary Service (Rules) 1965 dated 03.03.2021. He submits that the said termination notice is received by the Petitioner on 05.03.2021.

       Mohite                                                                        3/5





                                                28 wp816-21.odt

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner preferred the present interim application on 09.03.2021 with following reliefs:

"9. The applicant, therefore, most respectfully prays that:

a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the applicant to amend the above said Writ Petition (St.) no. 94660 of 2020 in terms of Schedule appended to this interim application.

b) Pending hearing and fnal disposal of the abovesaid writ petition (St.) no. 94660 of 2020, the respondent no. 3 acting through themselves or through its offcers, subordinates and agents, be restrained by an order of injunction from taking any coercive action against the petitioner based upon the notice of termination dated 3.3.2021 issued by it.

c) Such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem ft and proper be kindly granted."

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of these facts, Respondent no.3 may be restrained from acting on the basis of notice of termination of service dated 03.03.2021 which was received by the Petitioner on 05.03.2021. He submits that in any case, the said order will come into force from tomorrow i.e. 06.04.2021.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3 submits that in the present proceeding, this court by order dated 17.02.2021 specifcally rejected

Mohite 4/5

28 wp816-21.odt

the ad-interim relief granted by this court earlier. Considering these facts, they issued notice of termination of service dated 03.03.2021. She further submits that the said order is already implemented by them. She further submits that this order may come into force from today i.e. 05.04.2021. Therefore, there is no question of granting any interim relief to the Petitioner during the pendency of the present Writ Petition.

8. The learned A.G.P. for the State submits that he requires some time to take instruction from the concerned Committee within how much time they will decide the Petitioner's application for issuance of caste validity certifcate if matter is remanded back by considering the case certifcate dated 22.07.2005 (page 29 of the petition). Considering these facts, following order is passed:

a. Respondent no.3 is restrained from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner on the basis of their notice of termination of service dated 03.03.2021 i.e. not to terminate the Petitioner's service till further orders from this court.

b. Learned A.G.P. to take instructions from the Committee within how much time they will decide the Petitioner's application for issuance of caste validity certifcate, if the matter is remanded to them.

c. Matter to appear on board on 08.04.2021.

       (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)                        (K.K.TATED, J.)

       Mohite                                                                          5/5