Mrs. Beena Ulhas Muttalgiri vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 929 Bom

                                                                      10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC




                   Arun



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17148 OF 2022
                                                      IN
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2016


                   Beena Ulhas Muttalgiri                                       ...Applicant
                        In the matter between
                   Beena Ulhas Muttalgiri                                      ...Petitioner
                        Versus
                   The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.3,            ...Respondents
                   Pune & Ors


                   Dr Uday Warunjikar, for the Applicant/Petitioner.
                   Mrs SS Bhende, AGP, for State.
                   Mr RP Saroj, for Respondent No.2.


                                          CORAM         G.S. Patel &
                                                        Dr Neela Gokhale, JJ.

                                          DATED:        30th January 2023
                   PC:-

1. Rule. On 22nd February 2016, the Division Bench of this ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Court passed the following order:

Digitally signed by ARUN "1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Date: 2023.01.31 brought to the notice of this Court the communication 10:00:57 +0530 dated 15 February 2016 issued by the Respondent No.2 Management asking the Petitioner not to sign the muster till the decision of the Petition.

30th January 2023 10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC

2. By way of ad-interim, we direct Respondent No.2 Management not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner on account of invalidation of caste claim. The communication dated 15 February 2016 addressed by the Respondent Management to the Petitioner shall not be acted upon.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in case of Aruns/o Vishwanath Sonone v State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2015 (1), Mh.L.J. 457.

4. Returnable date of notice to unserved Respondents is extended by four weeks. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to serve them privately.

5. Learned AGP to take instructions.

6. Stand over to 21 March 2016 'fresh matter'."

2. The order in question does not formally grant Rule. We do so now. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented before us and waive service. Service on Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is to be effected through the Registry. Humdast is allowed. In addition, we permit service by courier.

3. The matter has been pending since January/February 2016. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not appeared although notices to them were ordered to be issued very soon after the Petition was filed. For this reason, if service cannot be effected in the manner prescribed by the rules or by courier privately, we take the liberty of permitting in advance service by publication in two newspapers circulating in the vicinity of the addresses of the Petitioners Nos. 1

30th January 2023 10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC

and 2, both from Pune. If service is done by publication, an affidavit proving publication will be required.

4. The challenge in the Petition is to an order dated 14th November 2015 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, invalidating the Petitioner's caste certificate. The peculiarity about this matter is that it is not the Petitioner who ever sought validation. Her caste certificate was forwarded by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, private complainants. The 3rd Respondent is an employee of the 2nd Respondent college with which the Petitioner was employed. The 4th Respondent appears to be an associate of the 3rd Respondent.

5. The Petitioner has an M.Ed from Pune University and M.A. from Karnataka University. She belongs to the Jangam caste. This is recognized as an open category in Karnataka but in Maharashtra it is categorised as an Other Backward Caste. The Petitioner married on 29th May 1981. Her husband is from the Beda Jangam caste. This is a Scheduled Caste, so recognized in Maharashtra.

6. Leaving aside the question of a policy encouraging inter-caste marriages, the relevant fact is that a caste certificate came to be issued to the Petitioner saying that she belonged to the same Scheduled Caste category as her husband. That certificate is of 30th October 1981. The Petitioner's marriage was registered at a later date.

30th January 2023 10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC

7. In June 1985, the Petitioner came to be appointed as an assistant teacher on probation with the 2nd Respondent-college. This appointment was, notably, not against any reserved category or reservation. The Petitioner was not a reserved category candidate. Factually, this position is undisputed. The Petitioner's appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune region on 29th August 1987. The Petitioner worked as an assistant teacher. Later, the benefits of successive pay commissions were offered to the Petitioner. She was placed in the selection grade. She underwent several training courses. There was no enquiry against the Petitioner. However, for reasons that are presently entirely unclear, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 complained about the Petitioner's employment on the basis that she did not have 'a valid caste certificate'. Details of these complaints are set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Petition. The 1st Respondent committee took up the case. The Petitioner filed her reply. She was heard. There was the usual process of a vigilance report and so on. Ultimately, these proceedings before the 1st Respondent-committee resulted in the impugned order of 14th November 2015.

8. The 2nd Respondent college has supported the Petitioner. Its own report shows that the Petitioner was never appointed as a reserved category candidate. There was no question of reservation or caste-based benefit right until the date the Petitioner retired on 31st May 2017.

9. We are unable to see how on a private complaint like this the Petitioner can possibly be found to be wanting because her

30th January 2023 10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC

certificate is allegedly invalid when she has never claimed any benefit on the basis of that certificate or as belonging to the caste described in that certificate. Even on 22nd February 2016, the Petitioner had relied on the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonawane v State of Maharashtra & Ors.1

10. For this reason, we have issued Rule.

11. Mr Warunjikar's immediate problem is that because of the interim order, the Petitioner has been denied all post-retirement dues and benefits including even pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. That is an unacceptable state of affairs. It is even more unacceptable that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, both private complainants, should have made this complaint, and, when that succeeded, put the Petitioner in this difficulty; yet, when she approaches this Court, joining them as Respondents to this Petition, both these private complainants studiedly stay away and do not come before this Court.

12. The inequity on the Petitioner describes and defines itself. In the Interim Application, the relief is prayer clause 12(a) which reads thus:

"12. (a) Be please to direct the added respondent No. 5 and 6 to release the retirement dues and pension of the applicant herein as early as possible alongwith interest @ this Hon'ble High Court thinks deed fit and proper."

1 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4595 : (2015) 1 Mah LJ 457 (FB) : (2015) 1 Bom CR 568 (Bom) (FB).

30th January 2023 10-ASIA-17148-2022.DOC

13. Any interest payable shall be as per the applicable rules.

14. Mr Warunjikar also draws our attention to the 14th December 2022 Government Resolution annexed at Exhibit "A" to the further Affidavit at page 17 of the Interim Application. He correctly points out that the underlying policy, even if this particular GR only applies to supernumerary persons, is that post-retirement benefits are not to be adversely affected in situations such as these.

15. Accordingly, while issuing Rule as stated above, we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Interim Application.

16. Rule is returnable on 26th April 2024.

(Dr Neela Gokhale, J)                                 (G. S. Patel, J)





                            30th January 2023