Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Princ. ... vs Chandrabhan Harishchandra Parate on 12 November, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:12018-DB
115) WP 4951-2025-J.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4951 OF 2025
1) State of Maharashtra, through its
Principal Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2) The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001 ....PETITIONERS
....VERSUS....
Chandrabhan Harishchandra Parate,
aged 58 years, Occ.: Deputy
Commissioner, r/o. Zenda
Chowk, Dharampeth, Nagpur ....RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.D.Marathe, AGP for petitioners/State.
Shri R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
DATE : 12/11/2025
JUDGMENT (PER: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
Heard finally by consent of learned AGP for the
State and learned counsel for the respondent, at the stage of
admission.
2. This petition is preferred by the State challenging
the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (in short, "MAT") in
Original Application (O.A.) No. 330/2024, dated 18/02/2025,
by which, the order of dismissal of respondent (applicant in
O.A.) dated 26/03/2024 was set aside. Further, the relief was
granted observing that since the applicant (respondent
herein) was shifted to a supernumerary post vide
Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 27/01/2020 and had
retired on 31/03/2014, his service be sanctioned and
retirement benefits in accordance with the policies framed by
the Government regarding similarly situated employees
shifted to the supernumerary posts, within four months from
the date of order be given.
3. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that in the
year 1987, the respondent was granted appointment as a
Tahsildar on the post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe
Category. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee (for short,
"Scrutiny Committee") issued a conditional validity
certificate to the respondent with a condition that the caste
certificate would be liable for action as per the judgment in
the case of Milind Katware, which would be decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the decision in the case of
Milind Katware, the Scrutiny Committee cancelled the
certificate of the respondent herein and it was ordered that he
would not be entitled for the benefits of Scheduled Tribe.
4. The respondent challenged the order of the
Scrutiny Committee before this Court by preferring the Writ
Petition No. 6029/2012, which remanded the matter back to
the Scrutiny Committee to decide afresh. This Court had
clarified that, if the claim of the respondent belonging to
Scheduled Tribe is invalidated and if any promotion is
granted to him on or after 28/11/2000, the same shall be
taken back and the respondent be restored to the position as
on 28/11/2000. According to the petitioners, the services of
the respondent were thereafter continued from the open
category.
5. On remand, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the
claim of the respondent and directed the appointing authority
to take action as per Section 10(1) r/w. (2) of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act
No. XXIII of 2001).
6. The respondent then preferred the Writ Petition
No. 2153/2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on
06/04/2016. The said order passed in Writ Petition No.
2153/2016 was taken exception before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, which dismissed the appeal on 10/08/2021. The
petitioners have thus contended that in view of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the services of the
respondent were terminated on 26/03/2024, which order was
then challenged by the respondent before the learned MAT by
preferring the O.A. No. 330/2024.
7. In O.A., initially, the stay was granted to the order
dated 26/03/2024 and finally, O.A. was allowed and order as
stated supra in para (1) was passed. According to the
petitioners, the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid background
should not have allowed the O.A., as it was in compliance of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the services of
the respondent were terminated.
8. Per contra, Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the
respondent in his brief argument contended that, there is no
jurisdictional error or perversity, which has been pointed out
by the petitioners. He, in order to avoid a repetition of
argument, has drawn our attention to the findings given by
the learned Tribunal, more particularly, in para 7 and
contended that, the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are
just and proper. For ready reference, the findings given by the
learned Tribunal in para 7, are reproduced herein below:-
"7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order in Civil
Appeal No.8928 of 2015 in the case of Chairman and
Managing Director FCI and Ors VS. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira and Ors with other matter, decided on 06/07/2017.
The State Government issued a G.R. dated 21/12/2019 to
implement this order. The State decided that those employees,
whose caste certificates of S.T. category have been invalidated,
should be shifted to supernumerary posts. The State
Government has extended various services and retirement
related benefits to the employees shifted to the supernumerary
posts vide G.R. dated 14/12/2022. The applicant was shifted to
a supernumerary post vide G.R. dated 27/01/2020. The
duration of this appointment was further extended vide G.R.
dated 31/03/2021. The applicant was then terminated from
service vide G.R. dated 26/03/2024, just a few days before his
retirement on 31/03/2024. The State Government has relied
upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.370 of 2017 in the case of Chandrabhan VS State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (cited supra) as mentioned in above
paragraph. The Apex Court has said that, no advantage can be
extended to the applicant after his "Halba" caste claim is
rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. This Tribunal stayed this
termination order; vide its order dated 28/03/2024. As an effect
of this order of the Tribunal, the applicant retired on a
supernumerary post, on which he was earlier posted vide G.R.
dated 27/01/2020 and the term was extended vide the
subsequent G.R. This shifting of the applicant to the
supernumerary post, after rejection of his S.T. caste claim, is in
accordance with the policy which the State Government has
adopted for all the similarly situated persons and therefore the
applicant is not being offered any special advantage in doing
so."
9. Perusal of findings would reveal that, shifting of
the respondent to the supernumerary post, after rejection of
his S.T. claim, was in accordance with the policy, which the
State Government has adopted for all the similarly situated
persons and no special advantage was given to the
respondent. In that view of the matter, no case is made out,
which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Hence,
the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
petition stands dismissed.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/11/2025 19:23:52
