Bombay High Court
Digambar S/O Ramrao Gadekar vs The Divisional Caste Cert. Scrutiny ... on 15 December, 2016
Author: Vasanti A Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, Swapna Joshi
WP 6587.16.[J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6587 OF 2016
Digambar s/o Ramrao Gadekar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. at village Muradpur,
Post-Bharosa, Tahsil-Chikhli,
District-Buldhana. .. Petitioner
ig .. Versus ..
1] The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola,
Tahsil and District-Akola,
through its Chairman.
2] Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chikhli,
Tahsil-Chikhli, District-Buldhana,
through its Secretary. .. Respondents
..........
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner,
Smt. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice for final disposal was issued against the respondents and the respondents are duly served.
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:20:25 ::: WP 6587.16.[J].odt 2By this writ petition, the petitioner claims the protection of his services in view of the judgment the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others) as the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher that was earmarked for the "Vimukta Jati" (A) on 25.8.1992 and though his caste claim is rejected, there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati-A). It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated only because the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Smt. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the full bench and further does not dispute that there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati-A).
Since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied by the judgment of the full bench stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1992 and there is no observation in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati-A), the services of the petitioner need to be protected in view of the judgment of the full bench.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:20:25 ::: WP 6587.16.[J].odt 3 respondent no.2 is directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher only on the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this court and before the respondent no.2 within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati-A), in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
Gulande, PA
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:20:25 :::