Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O Laxman Sonkusare vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 15 December, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
42-B WP No.416.20.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.416 OF 2020
1. Kishor S/o Laxman Sonkusare,
Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Baraipura, Prabhag-6
Tah. Parshioni, Distt. Nagpur
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Deptt.,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parisad, Nagpur .... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Sangita Jachak, AGP for respondent No.1/State.
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 15.12.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: A.S. CHANDURKAR J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 22:36:22 :::
42-B WP No.416.20.odt
2/4
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
with Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on a post that was reserved for
Scheduled Tribe candidate. The Tribe Certificate of the petitioner
was invalidated on 29.10.2001. The petitioner therefore
approached this Court challenging the said order in Writ Petition
No.48/2002. By the judgment dated 12.08.2013 this Court
upheld the order of invalidation but protected the services of the
petitioner. It was made clear that the petitioner would not be
entitled to any further caste benefits on the basis of the
certificate. Thereafter on 21.12.2019 Government Resolution was
issued by the respondent No.1 seeking to implement the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman
and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others
Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others. (2017) 8 SCC 670. In
paragraph 4.3 thereof it has been held that in respect of
employees whose claims have been invalidated, they shall be
placed on a supernumerary posts for a period of eleven months.
Acting on the said Government Resolution the respondent No.2
issued an order dated 27.12.2019 and placed the petitioner on a
supernumerary post. Being aggrieved the petitioner has
challenged the same.
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 22:36:22 :::
42-B WP No.416.20.odt
3/4
3. Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that the issue arising in this Writ Petition has
been decided by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.903/2020 with connected Writ Petitions (Raja
Tukaram Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Tribal
Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and another
with connected matters.) on 04.05.2021. He submits that the
Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 has been directed to
be applied in a manner so as not to include employees whose
tribe-claims are invalidated but are granted protection in
employment by the orders of the Court. It is therefore, submitted
that similar course be followed and the order dated 27.12.2019
be set aside.
4. Smt. Sangeeta Jachak, Learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent No.1 opposes the aforesaid
contention. It is submitted that the judgment referred to herein
above is sought to be challenged by the State Government before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the relief as prayed for
may not be granted.
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 22:36:22 :::
42-B WP No.416.20.odt
4/4
5. On perusing the judgment in Raja Tukaram Shinde
(supra) we find that this Court has held that in cases where
employment is protected by the orders of the Court and those
judgments have attained finality, the Government Resolution
dated 21.12.2019 could not be made applicable.
6. We are inclined to follow the aforesaid judgment of
Division Bench and hence for the reasons assigned in the said
judgment the following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The order dated 27.12.2019 issued by the respondent
No.2 appointing the petitioner on supernumerary post is set
aside.
(ii) The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment
in terms of the earlier order of protection that was passed in Writ
Petition No.48/2002.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
