Bombay High Court
Sanjay Surajpalsingh Mungona vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ... on 5 December, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik
wp6187.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6187/2016
PETITIONER: Sanjay Surajpalsingh Mungona
aged about 47 years, Occ. Service,
resident of Veterinary Dispensary,
Anjansingi, Dhamangaon Rly. Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry
and Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Amravati.
3. District Animal Husbandry Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati through its
Member/Secretary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for respondent no.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 00:52:33 :::wp6187.16.odt 2 By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his services, in view of the full Bench judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L.J. 457.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, as the petitioner was appointed as a Livestock Supervisor before the cut off date on 20.12.1985, on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis and though the caste claim of the petitioner in invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati.
Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri Chopde, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the position of law, as laid down by the Full Bench. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimjukta Jati. The learned Counsel state that an appropriate order may be passed, in the circumstances of the case.
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 00:52:33 :::wp6187.16.odt 3 It appears on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The petitioner was appointed as early as in the year 1985, i.e., before the cut off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. It appears that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated as he was not able to prove the same, on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of Livestock Supervisor on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos.2 and 3 within one month that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 00:52:33 :::