Bombay High Court
Dr Dilip Pratapsingh Rajput vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai And 2 ... on 4 June, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp2196.2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2196/2004
Dr. Dilip Pratapsingh Rajput,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Z.P. Road, Camp, Amravati
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept.
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Chairman,
Amravati,
3] The Dean,
Panjabrao Deshmukh Medical College and Hospital,
Amravati
.... RESPONDENT(S)
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
Z.A.HAQ, JJ.
DATED : 04/06/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1] Nobody for petitioner and respondent no. 3. With the assistance of learned AGP, we have perused record of writ petition. ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:05 :::
Judgment 2 wp2196.2004.odt 2] The petitioner questions decision of respondent no. 2/Scrutiny
Committee dated 07/08/2003 holding that petitioner does not belong to Rajput Bhamta caste and directed his employer/respondent no. 3 to dismiss it. This Court, has on 28/05/2004 protected his employment after noticing contention that petitioner completed his education in open category and has been selected and appointed from open category. At that time, he was 48 years old. Obviously, he has reached age of superannuation i.e. 58 years some time in 2014.
3] Learned AGP has pointed out that basic document certifying that petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhamta caste has not been issued by Sub- Divisional Officer. This rejection dated 30/08/2002 was questioned by petitioner in an appeal under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Cast Certificate Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 23 of 2001") by filing appeal before Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has, by impugned decision, found his caste claim unjustified. The Scrutiny Committee has conducted vigilance enquiry, collected old records and found that petitioner does not belongs to Rajput Bhamta category. He also fairly invited our attention to other annexures with the writ petition. ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:05 :::
Judgment 3 wp2196.2004.odt 4] We find that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated
09/04/1986 in W.P. No. 251/1965 important in this matter. That petition was filed by one Deepak Pratapsingh Rajput who happens to be brother of petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court has for the reasons recorded by it, found it proper to uphold caste claim of Deepak Pratapsingh Rajput by said judgment. Deepak Pratapsingh Rajput is held to be Rajput Bhamta. 5] The facts at hand show that petitioner was seeking only a basic document i.e. caste certificate which thereafter is to be validated by Scrutiny Committee. The judgment dated 09/04/1986 itself should have been accepted as valid proof and basic document i.e. caste certificate could not have been rejected or denied to petitioner.
6] In view of this discussion and superannuation of petitioner, we find impugned decision of Scrutiny Committee dated 07/08/2003 unsustainable. The same is quashed and set aside. We direct Sub-Divisional Officer working under respondent no. 1 or Competent Authority under Act No. 23 of 2001 to issue caste certificate to petitioner. The same is of course subject to its further scrutiny as per procedure prescribed in said enactment. This exercise shall be completed within period of six weeks from today. As contention of petitioner that he has been selected and appointed in open category has been rebutted by his employer or other respondents, we find directions of Scrutiny Committee to terminate his employment unsustainable ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:05 ::: Judgment 4 wp2196.2004.odt and that direction is accordingly quashed and set aside. 7] Writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ansari
::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:05 :::