Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9487 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 September, 2023
2023:BHC-NAG:13629-DB
1 WP1893.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1893 OF 2023
Ishwar s/o Kisan Murdakar,
aged about 48 years,
occupation : Service,
r/o Raipur, Tahsil and District
Buldhana. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra, through
Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, Tahsil and
District Buldhana.
2) Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha,
Raipur, through President,
Tahsil and District Buldhana.
3) Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha,
Raipur, through Secretary,
Tahsil and District Buldhana.
4) Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha,
Raipur, through Headmaster,
Raipur, Tahsil and District Buldhana. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri M.V. Bute, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri K.P. Mahalle, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
----------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 2 WP1893.23
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A,S, CHANDURKAR, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon, which was
reserved for members of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to
belong to "Mahadeo Koli" (Scheduled Tribe). The tribe claim of the
petitioner, however, came to be invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on
18/9/2015. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.5488/2015 (Ishwar s/o Kisan Murdakar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others). By the judgment dated 27/10/2015 though the
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld, the employer
(respondent nos.2 to 4 herein) was directed to protect the services of the
petitioner subject to petitioner submitting an undertaking that he would
not claim benefit of his tribe during the course of employment.
Notwithstanding aforesaid, the petitioner has been issued order dated
7/12/2022 seeking to treat his appointment on a supernumerary post.
3) The learned Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the
legal issue in this regard has been considered and decided in a bunch of
writ petitions being Writ Petition No.903/2020 (Raja Tukaram Shinde vs.
The State of Maharashtra and another) with connected writ petitions on 3 WP1893.23
4/5/2021 at Aurangabad Bench. Since the services of the petitioner have
been protected and Government Resolution dated 21/12/2019, on the
basis of which the order dated 7/12/2022 came to be passed, does not
entitle the employer to place the services of the petitioner on a
supernumerary post, the following order is passed :
The impugned order dated 7/12/2022 issued by the
respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to
continue in employment in the light of protection granted in Writ Petition
No.5488/2015.
4) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
Signed by: Kamal H. Jeswani
Designation: Additional Secretary
Date: 13/09/2023 15:30:17
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!