Bombay High Court
Rajesh Laxminarayan Madhekar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 2 September, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 971-wp 3283-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3283 OF 2021
Rajesh Laxminarayan Madhekar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Smt. Anjali Bajpai-Dube, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 02nd September, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. The petitioner is appointed from the Scheduled Tribe category.
2. The petitioner is employee of the respondent No. 4/Aurangabad
Municipal Corporation. The employer has placed the petitioner on
supernumerary post on the ground that validity certificate is not yet
submitted. Same is assailed in the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Palodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the proposal is forwarded by the Municipal Corporation to the Scrutiny
Committee for validation of the tribe claim of the petitioner in the year
2014. The matter is pending with the Committee. The Committee has
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 22:47:22 :::
2 971-wp 3283-2021.odt
also communicated the factum of pendency of the validation
proceeding, still the corporation has placed the petitioner on
supernumerary post.
4. Mrs. Dube, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5
submits that, the petitioner is appointed from the Scheduled Tribe
category. He is required to submit the validity certificate within six
months. The validity certificate is 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 petitioner on supernumerary post.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader upon instructions
from the Committee confirm that validation proceeding of the
petitioner is pending with the Committee.
6. To get the proceeding decided within stipulated period is 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
petitioner, the petitioner would not have any role to play in the
validation proceeding.
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 22:47:22 :::
3 971-wp 3283-2021.odt
7. In view of the fact that, the validation proceeding is still pending
before the Committee and it does not appear that the petitioner is
responsible for delay in deciding validation proceeding, we pass
following order.
ORDER
A. The impugned communication is quashed and set aside.
B. The scrutiny committee shall decide the validation proceeding in
respect of tribe claim of the petitioner on its own merits, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of the
appearance of the petitioner.
C. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 04 th
October, 2021.
D. The petitioner shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the
validation proceeding 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 the
validation proceeding of the petitioner.
F. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
3 of 3
