Bombay High Court
Ananta S/O Pundlik Theng vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 25 November, 2016
Author: Swapna Joshi
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, Swapna Joshi
wp.5391.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5391/2016
Ananta s/o Pundlik Theng,
Aged about 50 years, occu: service
R/o Shahu Nagar, WardNo.5
Chikhli, Tah. Chikhli,
Dist.Buldhana. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.2, Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola
Through its Chairman.
2) Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Chikhli, Tah. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana
Through its Secretary
3) Siddeshwar Vidyalaya,
Kolara, Tah. Chkhli
Dist. Buldana,
Through its Headmaster. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.H.Joshi, Asst. Government Pleader for Respondent No.1
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 25th November, 2016
JUDGMENT:(PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, 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.
2. By this Petition,the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 2.9.2016 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:27:06 ::: wp.5391.16 2 to 'Rajput Bhamta' (Vimukta Jati). The petitioner has further sought the protection of his services, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra.
3. Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given up his caste claim and the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed if the services of the petitioner are protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457:
Arun Sonone vs.State of Maharashtra.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.9.1992. The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' which is recognised as a Vimukta Jati (A), by the State of Maharashtra and in the list of De-notified Tribes. The caste claim of the petitioner was verified by the Scrutiny Committee. It was however decided by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner does not belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' caste. The petitioner has given up his caste claim and, in view of the Full Bench judgment (supra) has only sought protection of his services.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, contended that the services of the petitioner be protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench (supra) as the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000 and there is no observation of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Rajput Bhmata'. The learned counsel submitted that both the conditions are satisfied by the petitioner as per the directions of the Full Bench.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Ambarish Joshi, did not dispute the legal position as laid down by the Full Bench. He stated that that no finding of fraud is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee against the petitioner in its order.
7. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record as ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:27:06 ::: wp.5391.16 3 well as the judgment of the Full Bench, it is found that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The petitioner was appointed before the cut off date, i.e. on 1.9.1992. So also, there is no observation of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had secured the benefits meant for 'Rajput Bhamta', fraudulently. Thus, both the conditions as required by the Full Bench judgment are fulfilled by the petitioner.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is passed:-
ig ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services
of the petitioner, on the post of Assistant Teacher, on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 within four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for 'Rajput Bhamta' (V.J.), in future.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:27:06 :::