Bombay High Court
Shalik Vamanrao Jagdale vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 wp 1704.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1704 OF 2022
Shalik Vamanrao Jagdale,
Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Service,
Presently residing at
Plot No. 6, Near Shani Mandir
Chowk, Amrutdham Panchavati,
Tq. and Dist. Nashik. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar,
through its Member Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer,
Division, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
3. Union of India
through Secretary,
Defence Ministry of India.
4. The Deputy General Manager,
Human Resource Department,
Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Aircraft Division,
(Government of India Undertaking)
Ozar township Nashik,
Dist. Nashik. .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri A. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2022.
2 wp 1704.22
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.) :-
. Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Talhar, the learned
counsel waives service for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Rule is
made returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 05 th July,
2014 and order dated 24th December, 2021 passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar thereby rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner has withdrawn his claim from the Scrutiny
Committee.
3. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner
invited our attention to the contentions raised in the petition and
more particularly by relying on para No. 12 and Ground No. III
and would submit that the petitioner got confused and instead of
seeking time to get fresh tribe certificate in Form - C from the
Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule, the petitioner submitted written
application thereby seeking return of his proposal along with
original tribe certificate. There was no intention on the part of
the petitioner to avoid verification of his tribe claim. He submits
that, the petitioner has good case on merits. Since the petitioner
was not armed with any person conversant with the provisions of
law, the petitioner could not understand the consequence of the
application made by the petitioner and the scrutiny committee
3 wp 1704.22
rejecting the claim made by the petitioner.
4. Affidavit in reply is not filed by respondents to the
averments made in the petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that application
is rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had applied in
writing for withdrawal of his claim and not on merits.
6. We are inclined to accept the explanation given by the
petitioner in the petition that said application for withdrawal of
claim was made on ground of bonafide mistake.
7. The impugned order 24.12.2021 passed by the Scrutiny
Committee is accordingly quashed and set aside.
8. We have made it clear that the petitioner will first apply
for correction of caste certificate granted by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Dhule within a period of one week from today. Upon
making an application by the petitioner for correction of caste
certificate, the respondent No. 2 shall correct the said caste
certificate and issue corrected certificate in favour of the
petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of
petitioner applying for correction of caste certificate. After the
caste certificate is corrected and issued to the petitioner by the S.
D. O., the petitioner in that event would be entitled to apply for
validation of caste certificate before the Scrutiny Committee.
The Scrutiny Committee in that event shall decide and dispose of
4 wp 1704.22
the said proposal for caste validity within a period of eight (08)
weeks from the date of submission of corrected caste certificate
along with proposal by the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee
shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merits
and in accordance with law.
9. In view of the fact that, the impugned order passed the
caste scrutiny committee is set aside with further directions to
consider caste claim of the petitioner on its own merits, we also
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 passed
by the respondent No. 4 thereby terminating the services of the
petitioner. The services of the petitioner shall be restored with
immediate effect, which shall be subject to the outcome of the
order that would be passed by the Scrutiny Committee.
10. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner
states that, his client would not claim for backwages from the
date of termination till his reinstatement in service. Statement is
accepted.
11. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in
above terms. No order as to costs.
12. The parties to act on authenticate copy of this judgment.
[S. G. MEHARE, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
bsb/March 22
