Sainath Shankar Rasolgikar vs The State Of Maharashtra Dept. Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2381 Bom

                                                                     43.159.23-wp.docx


         Digitally
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         signed by
         BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL    Date:
         2023.03.15
         13:15:06
         +0530

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 159 OF 2023

                      Sainath Shankar Rasolgikar                     ..... Petitioner

                            Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                ..... Respondents


                      Mr. S. C. Yeramwar for the Petitioner
                      Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w. Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the State


                                              CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : MARCH 13, 2023

PC : (PER : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Rule.

Rule is made returnable forthwith.

By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. The caste claim of the Petitioner as Koli Mahadev, Scheduled

Tribe is invalidated.

3. The Petitioner relied upon the school record of his grandfather

Sidram Bhimanna Rasolgikar, wherein his date of admission is

shown of the year 1955 and the caste is recorded as Hindu Mahadev

Koli. The Committee has also relied upon one document of Sidram

Bhimanna Rasolgikar wherein the date of birth is recorded as 12 th

Basavraj 1/3 43.159.23-wp.docx

May 1943 and the date of admission in the school is 21 st November

1950. Both the entries cannot be of one and the same person, as the

date of birth of both the persons are different though the name

appears to be the same.

4. The Petitioner claims that his grandfather born on 1 st June

1948 and was admitted to the 1st standard on 18th June 1955.

Neither the vigilance nor the Committee has opined as to what would

be the correct entry of the Petitioner's grandfather. The vigilance

has verified both the documents and submitted its report. The said

documents being old, will have probative value.

5. In light of the aforesaid scenario, it was necessary for the

Committee to conclude, as to which school record is the genuine

school record of the grandfather of the Petitioner Sidram Bhimanna

Rasolgikar. The said exercise does not seem to have been conducted

by the Committee.

6. In the result, we are inclined to remit back the matter to the

Committee to consider both the entries and come to the conclusion,

as to the real entry of the grandfather of the Petitioner Sidram

Bhimanna Rasolgikar.

7. Hence, we pass the following order:

Basavraj                                                         2/3
                                              43.159.23-wp.docx

a. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.

b. The parties are relegated before the Committee. The

parties shall appear before the Committee on 31st March 2023.

c. The Committee, if so desire, may conduct fresh home

inquiry or vigilance and may arrive at conclusion as to the

correct entry of the school record of the grandfather of the

Petitioner viz. Sidram Bhimanna Rasolgikar. The Petitioner is

also entitled to put-forth his say. The Committee shall

thereafter decide the proceedings within six months.

d. As the impugned order of the Committee is quashed and

set aside, the impugned order placing the Petitioner on

supernumerary post is also set aside. The employer, depending

upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee,

may take further decision.

e. Rule is accordingly made absolute.

f. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                   (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Basavraj                                                         3/3