Sahebrao Deoba Nandedkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15549 Bom

                                            1                                 wp 12162.21

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12162 OF 2021

          Sahebrao Deoba Nandedkar                                 ..    Petitioner

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and another                     ..    Respondents

 Shri Apparao Yenegure, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                           CORAM :     S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                       R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 28TH OCTOBER, 2021.

FINAL ORDER :

. The tribe claim of the petitioner was invalidated. The petitioner had challenged the order of the Committee invalidating the tribe claim before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2006. The Division Bench of this Court under order dated September 11, 2006 confirmed the judgment of the Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, however, granted protection in service.

2. Now the petitioner is placed on supernumerary post.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader accepts notice for all respondents and submits that, as claim of the petitioner is invalidated, the petitioner is rightly placed on supernumerary post as per the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019.

2 wp 12162.21

4. It appears that, the petitioner was employed from the Scheduled Tribe category. The claim of the petitioner was invalidated. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2006 before this Court. This Court under judgment and order dated September 11, 2006 confirmed the judgment of the Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, however, granted protection in service.

5. We have in our judgment and order dated 04th May, 2021 in Writ Petition No. 903 of 2020 with other connected writ petitions held that, once the protection is granted by this Court, the judgment inter parties become final and as such the protection in service would be available. The said protection is binding the employer also. The employer was party in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2006 decided on September 11, 2006.

6. In the light of the above, the impugned communication placing the petitioner on supernumerary post is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

bsb/Oct.21