Satish Gouraji Gundawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9174 Bom

                                    1                           WP.12056.21



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 12056 OF 2021


Satish Gouraji Gundawar
Age : 32 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o. Tamlur, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded                                                   .. Petitioner

         Versus

1.       The State of Maharashtra
         Through its Secretary,
         Tribal Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.       The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
         Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
         Through its Deputy Director (R)

3.       The Registrar,
         Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi
         Vidyapith, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani        .. Respondents
                                    ...
 Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for the Respondent / State
 Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                   ...

                                   CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                              SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 13-09-2022

ORAL JUDGMENT ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) :

. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The

learned advocates and the learned AGP waive service for the

2 WP.12056.21

respective respondents. At the joint request of the parties, the matter

is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is seeking provisional appointment since

he was selected on a reserved post, in view of the Government

Resolution dated 12.12.2011.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Jadhavar for the petitioner submits

that pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner was selected against

a reserved category post. He was having a caste certificate, but was

not having caste validity certificate. Pursuant to the Government

Resolution dated 12.12.2011, a provisional appointment ought to

have been given subject to the result of the validation proceeding,

which was to be completed within six months. However, no such

procedure was followed and even now the proceeding before the

Scrutiny Committee is pending.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Navandar submits that time and

again the petitioner was informed the requirement of undergoing the

process of scrutiny, still he had not responded positively. This has

resulted in the delay. Though the respondent - University is bound by

the Government Resolution dated 12.12.2011, the petitioner ought to

have taken steps for getting the validation proceeding decided at the

3 WP.12056.21

earliest, therefore, the petition be dismissed.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Yawalkar submits that the validity

proceeding is under active consideration. A Vigilance Report is

awaited and the decision would be taken within six months.

6. There cannot be a dispute that the petitioner was

selected against a reserved category post and was supposed to get the

caste validity certificate within six months. However, the Government

Resolution dated 12.12.2011 issued pursuant to the directions of this

Court in a bunch of writ petitions specifically provides for giving of

provisional appointments, which would be subject to the ultimate

decision in the validity proceeding. If such is the state of affairs, it

was incumbent upon the respondent - University to have issued

provisional appointment order and then should have waited for the

decision of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition directing

the respondent - University to give provisional appointment to the

petitioner on the post selected within a period of four weeks from

today. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee shall now decide the

petitioner's proceeding within six months. The appointment of the

4 WP.12056.21

petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the validity proceeding.

8. Rule is made absolute.

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

GGP