Bombay High Court
Vandana Kacheshwar Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr ... on 12 February, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 989-WP-9097-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
989 WRIT PETITION NO.9097 OF 2020
Vandana Kacheshwar Pawar
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: A-24/9, Shivaji Nagar,
Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist - Aurangabad. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary for
General Administration Department
Mantralaya Mumbai - 32
2. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
Through its Administrator and Commissioner
3. Education Officer
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Barde Parag Vijay, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Yadav - Lonikar, AGP for Respondents/State
Mrs. Anjali Bajpai Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 12.02.2021
P.C. :
. The petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order, is placed
on Supernumerary Post. The reason for placing the petitioner on
2 989-WP-9097-2020.odt
Supernumerary Post is the judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and
Others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others reported in 2017 AIR
SC 3271.
2. Mr. Barde the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 as a Primary
Teacher and on 4th January, 2001 was made permanent. On 29 th June,
2007, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the
petitioner. The petitioner assailed the said judgment by filing Writ
Petition No.6631 of 2007. Under the judgment and order dated 20 th
February 2015, this Court upheld the judgment of the Scrutiny
Committee invalidated the caste claim but protected the service of the
petitioner.
3. The learned counsel submits that the protection was
granted to the petitioner. The said order of the High Court become
final. Now, the respondents could not have taken action against the
petitioner on ground of invalidation of caste claim. The same would
be against the judgment of the High Court. The learned counsel
relies on the following judgments of the Apex Court which are as
under:
3 989-WP-9097-2020.odt
(i) S. G. Barapatre and Ors. Vs. Ananta Gajanan Gaiki
and Ors. reported in AIR (2018) SC (715)
(ii) Gajanan Marotrao Nimje and Ors. Vs. Reserve
Bank of India and Ors. reported in AIR (2018) SC 703
(iii) Chief Regional Officer the Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pradip and Another reported in SCC (2020)
4. Smt. Dube the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2
and 3 submits that the action has been taken by respondent Nos. 2
and 3 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira & Ors. reported in 2017 AIR SC 3271. The learned advocate
also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay
Kishanrao Kurundkar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. dated
28th February, 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1865 of 2020 to submit that
even if protection was granted earlier, the same would not be an
impediment for the respondents to pass the impugned order.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocate for the parties.
6. The factual matrix as narrated above is not disputed.
After the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated, the petitioner
4 989-WP-9097-2020.odt
filed Writ Petition bearing No.6631 of 2007. This Court upheld the
invalidation of the caste claim. This Court further observed that the
petitioner has not played fraud nor is guilty of misrepresentation or
forgery, only because of lack of evidence, he could not prove his case
and relying on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court operating
then that is in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 2015 (1) MLJ 457 granted
protection to the service of the petitioner.
7. The facts of the present case are akin to the facts in case
of S.G. Barapatre and Ors. Vs. Ananta Gajanan Gaiki and Ors (Supra).
In the said case, before the judgment was delivered by the Apex Court
in a case of Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Ors. Vs. Jagdish
Balaram Bahira & Ors (Supra), the service of the petitioner was
protected under the order of this Court dated 20 th February, 2015 in
Writ Petition No.6631 of 2007. In case of Chief Regional Officer the
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradip and Another (Supra), the Apex
Court had considered the judgment in case of S. G. Barapatre & Ors.
Vs. Ananta Gajanan Gaiki & Ors (Supra) and Gajanan Marotrao Nimje
& Ors. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (Supra) and observed as
under:
5 989-WP-9097-2020.odt
"15. The above observations make it abundantly clear
that the challenge by the Food Corporation of India to
the order of the Bombay High Court had been
rejected on 12 April 2013 and as a result of the
decision inter partes, the order of the High Court had
attained finality. Consequently, this Court clarified in
paragraph 9 of the above order that only the
employees covered by the earlier judgment shall be
entitled to the benefits which have been granted
specifically by the High Court in paragraph 18 of its
judgment, which has been extracted above."
8. The petitioner was already granted protection under the
order of this Court before the judgment of the Apex Court in FCI was
delivered. The same had attained finality prior to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of FCI (Supra).
9. In light of the above, The writ petition is disposed of. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
Sameer
