Bombay High Court
Rupesh S/O Teksingh Shinde vs The Divisional Caste Verification ... on 3 February, 2016
Author: Vasanti A Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, A.S. Chandurkar
WP 136/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 136/2015
Rupesh S/o Teksingh Shinde,
aged about 40 years, Occupation - Service in
the Accounts Office of Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Nagpur,
resident of 6/47, Raje Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Caste Verification Committee,
Social Welfare Department,
Through its Secretary,
Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Maharashtra, Van Bhavan, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri Amardeep Dhoble holding for Shri R.S. Parsodkar, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri P.A. Gode, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 03 , 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant protection to his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:48 :::WP 136/15 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk, on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis on 26.03.1999. The petitioner claimed to belong to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification.
The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated 29.07.2011. In pursuance of the invalidation of the caste claim, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent no.2. The petitioner has sought the reinstatement in service and the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench.
4. Shri Dhoble, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date in the year 1999 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fabricated the documents or manipulated the same with a view to secure the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. It is stated that since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied for granting the protection to the services, are satisfied in the case of the petitioner, a direction needs to be issued to the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service and protect his services.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:48 :::WP 136/15 3 Judgment
5. Shri Nikhil Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Shri Prashant Gode, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 do not dispute the position of law as laid down by the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone Versus State of Maharashtra & Others). It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioner is appointed before the cut-off date. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the respondents that there are some adverse observations against the petitioner in the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the services of the petitioner may not be protected. It is submitted that it is observed by the Scrutiny Committee that though in most of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, caste 'Rajput' is mentioned in the caste column, the petitioner had illegally secured the caste certificate that the caste of the petitioner is Rajput Bhamta and not Rajput. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, an appropriate order may be passed.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:48 ::: WP 136/15 4 Judgment Committee that the petitioner has fabricated the documents and/or has manipulated the same with a view to secure the benefits meant for Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. Merely because in the documents pertaining to the near relatives of the petitioner, caste 'Rajput' is recorded in the caste column, it cannot be said that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. There is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that there is some scoring or overwriting in the documents and/or same words are added in the documents produced by the petitioner. In the absence of such observations, it is clear that the petitioner had not tried to fraudulently secure the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jatis.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of clerk-cum-typist on the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati, in future. The respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on his original post, i.e. clerk-cum-typist, within a period of one week from the date of furnishing of the undertaking. Since the petitioner was out of service from the date of termination of his services till he would be reinstated in ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:48 ::: WP 136/15 5 Judgment service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits flowing from his reinstatement, though he would be entitled to the continuity of services.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:48 :::