Hemlata Pradip Bhuyar Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 243 Bom

                                      1                             wp 9104.20

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9104 OF 2020

          Hemlata Pradip Bhuyar Kadam                  ..   Petitioner

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and others          ..   Respondents

 Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
 Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advoacte for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                           CORAM :    S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                      SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 06TH JANUARY, 2021.

FINAL ORDER :

. The petitioner has been appointed from the reserved category. Under the impugned communication the petitioner is placed on supernumerary post.

2. Mr. Barde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the tribe claim of the petitioner was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4714 of 2004 before the Nagpur Bench of this Court. The Nagpur Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition under judgment and order dated 01.08.2018. The petitioner filed SLP before the Apex Court bearing S.L.P. No. 26231 of 2018. The Apex Court under order dated 08.10.2018 issued notice to the respondents and the interim relief as was operating in the High Court is

2 wp 9104.20

continued. The services of the petitioner were protected by the High Court. The learned counsel further submits that, the Government Resolution pursuant to which the petitioner is placed on supernumerary post would not apply, as the interim orders are passed by the Court. The learned counsel relies on the Clause 1(E) of the Government Resolution dated 21 st December, 2019.

3. We have also heard Mrs. Dube, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Clause 1(E) of the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 reads thus :

1- vuqlwfpr tekrhlkBh jk[kho vlysyh ins fjDr dj.ks & loZ iz"kkldh; foHkkxkauh [kq} o R;kaP;k vf/kiR;k[kkyhy "kkldh;@fue"kkldh; dk;kZy;krhy vuqlwfpr tekrhP;k [kkyhy vf/kdkjh o deZpk&;kaph laoxZfugk; la[;k fuf"pr d#u R;kaP;k lsok fn- 31-12-2019 Ik;Zar vf/kla[; inkaoj oxZ djkO;kr %&

¼v½ -------

¼b½ T;k vf/kdjh o deZpk&;kauh R;kaps vuqlwfpr tekrhps tkr izek.ki= voS/k Bjfo.;kP;k tkr iMrkG.kh lferhP;k fu.kZ;kP;k fojks/kkr eukuh; U;k;ky;kr ;kfpdk nk[ky dsY;k vlrhy ek= R;kaP;k izdj.kh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;kus fdaok ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky;kus tkr izek.ki= voS/k Bjfo.;kP;k lferhP;k fu.kZ;kl dks.krhgh LFkfxrh fnyh ulsy vls vf/kdkjh o deZpkjh-

3 wp 9104.20

5. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Apex Court wherein interim relief is granted in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner affirms that the said interim relief is still operating and the SLP is pending before the Apex Court.

6. In the light of the interim orders passed by the Apex Court and Clause 1(E) of the G. R. dated 21 st December, 2019, the petitioner could not have been placed on supernumerary post.

7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order.

8. The impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The employer may take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Apex Court in the pending S.L.P.

9. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

bsb/Jan. 21