Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Santosh S/O Shankarappa Bhogaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 December, 2016

Author: Swapna Joshi

Bench: Vasanti A Naik, Swapna Joshi

     1412WP6701.16-Judgment                                                                         1/4


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                          WRIT PETITION NO.  6701   OF    2016

     PETITIONER :-                        Santosh s/o Shankarappa Bhogaonkar, aged
                                          about   47   years,   Occu:-   Service,   Assistant
                                          Teacher,   Zilla   Parishad   Higher   Primary




                                                                   
                                          School, Shelgaon, Panchayat Samiti Washim,
                                          Zilla Parishad : Washim.    

                                             ...VERSUS... 




                                                   
     RESPONDENTS :-                  1) State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
                               ig       Department   of   Education,   Mantralaya,
                                        Mumbai-32. 
                                     2) The   Education   Officer,   (Primary),   Zilla
                                        Parishad, Washim. 
                             
                                     3) The   Zilla   Parishad,   Washim,   through   its
                                        Chief Executive Officer. 
                                     4) Divisional   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee,
      

                                        Amravati   Division,   Akola,   through   its
                                        Chairman. 
   



     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Mr.S.G.Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
        Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 4. 
                              None for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.





     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                        MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,   JJ.

DATED : 14.12.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents and all the respondents are duly served.

::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2016 00:40:56 ::: 1412WP6701.16-Judgment 2/4

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to protect the services of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher by the respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad on 18/11/1996, on the post earmarked for the other backward classes. The petitioner claims to belong to Koshti caste, that was included at the relevant time in the other backward classes. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee verified the caste claim of the petitioner and held that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste, which is included in the special backward category. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was appointed, Koshti caste was included in the other backward classes, whereas since the year 2013, it is included in the special backward category. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not at fault for the removal of Koshti caste from the list of castes in the other backward classes and inclusion of the same in the special backward category. The petitioner has, therefore, sought the protection of his services.

According to the petitioner, since the services of the petitioner were terminated on 18/02/2015 and he was reinstated in terms of the order of this court on 27/04/2015, the petitioner is entitled to seek a direction against the respondent-Zilla Parishad to protect the services of the petitioner with continuity of services.

::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2016 00:40:56 ::: 1412WP6701.16-Judgment 3/4

4. Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 4, does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that since the petitioner had not falsely claimed that he belongs to the other backward classes while securing the employment, an appropriate order may be passed.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that when the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher, Koshti caste was included in the other backward classes and before the caste claim of the petitioner was validated by the Scrutiny Committee on 24/09/2013, Koshti caste was included in the special backward category. Hence, though the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Koshti caste is validated, it is held by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner belongs to the caste that falls in the special backward category. We do not find that the petitioner has played any fraud while securing the employment in the year 1996. As at the relevant time, Koshti caste, to which the petitioner belongs, was included in the other backward classes and the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the other backward classes. In the circumstances of the case, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. Since the services of the petitioner were wrongfully terminated on 18/02/2015, though the petitioner was not at fault, the services of the petitioner need to be protected with continuity.

::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2016 00:40:56 ::: 1412WP6701.16-Judgment 4/4

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad is directed to protect the services of the petitioner with continuity of service. Since the petitioner has not worked for the period during which he was out of service in the year 2015, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the said period though the petitioner would be entitled to all other benefits flowing from the order of continuity of service. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                               JUDGE                                            JUDGE 
                            
     KHUNTE
      
   






    ::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2016                              ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2016 00:40:56 :::