Bombay High Court
Shabana Azmi Abdul Khalique vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 January, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 9096.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9096 OF 2020
ShahanaP avreen Abdul Kareem .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9098 OF 2020
Shaikh Abdul Aleem Abdul Aziz .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9099 OF 2020
Shaikh Tahseen Abdul Wahab .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:51:27 :::
2 wp 9096.20
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9100 OF 2020
Khan Naaz Firdose Akbar Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9101 OF 2020
Shobha Fakira Pawar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9105 OF 2020
Shabana Azmi Abdul Khalique .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9106 OF 2020
Tahseen Abdul Hamid Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:51:27 :::
3 wp 9096.20
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9107 OF 2020
Qureshi Waheeda Begum Mohd Usman .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9108 OF 2020
Asmat Sultana Mohd. Azam .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 06TH JANUARY, 2021.
FINAL ORDER :
. In all these matters, the petitioners are appointed from the
Scheduled Tribe category.
2. The petitioners are employees of the respondent No.
4/Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. The employer has placed
the petitioners on supernumerary post on the ground that
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:51:27 :::
4 wp 9096.20
validity certificates are not yet submitted. Same is assailed in
the present writ petitions.
3. Mr. Barde, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the proposals are forwarded by the Municipal Corporation
to the Scrutiny Committee for validation of the tribe claims of
the petitioners in the year 2013. The matters are pending with
the Committee. The Committee has also communicated the
factum of pendency of the validation proceedings, still the
corporation has placed the petitioners on supernumerary post.
4. Mrs. Dube, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and
5 submits that, the petitioners are appointed from the Scheduled
Tribe category. They are required to submit the validity
certificates within six months. The validity certificates are not
yet submitted. In view of that and also in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and
others reported in 2017(8) SCC 670, the Corporation has rightly
placed the petitioners on supernumerary posts.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders in respective
writ petitions upon instructions from the Committee confirm that
validation proceedings of the petitioners are pending with the
Committee.
6. To get the proceedings decided within stipulated period is
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:51:27 :::
5 wp 9096.20
not in the hands of a litigant. It is submitted that in some of the
matters vigilance has been conducted and in some of the matters
vigilance is not conducted. Until the copy of vigilance report is
served upon the petitioners, the petitioners would not have any
role to play in the validation proceedings.
7. In view of the fact that, the validation proceedings are still
pending before the Committee and it does not appear that the
petitioners are responsible for delay in deciding validation
proceedings, we pass following order.
ORDER
A. The impugned communication is quashed and set aside.
B. The scrutiny committee shall decide the validation
proceedings in respect of tribe claims of the petitioners on its own
merits, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six (06)
months from the date of the appearance of the petitioners.
C. The petitioners shall appear before the Committee on 02 nd
February, 2021.
D. The petitioners shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of
the validation proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee.
E. The employer may take further course of action depending
upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in
6 wp 9096.20
the validation proceedings of the petitioners.
F. The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Jan. 21
