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

Sou. Pratibha Umeshsingh Gour vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 29 January, 2016

Author: V.A. Naik

Bench: Vasanti A. Naik

                  wp6768.15.odt                                                                                          1/4


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                     
                                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.6768 OF 2015




                                                                                       
                   PETITIONER:                                Pratibha   Bhagatsingh   Thakur   @
                                                              Pratibha   Umeshsingh   Gour,   Aged
                        
                                                              about 44 years, Occ. Service, R/o At
                                                              Post   Shrikrushnapeth,   Morshi,   Tah.




                                                                                      
                                                              Morshi, District Amravati.
                                                                         
                                                           
                                                                    -VERSUS-




                                                                   
                   RESPONDENTS:     ig                       1.         The   Divisional   Caste   Scrutiny
                                                                        Committee,   Amravati   Division,
                                                                        Amravati through its Secretary.
                                                             2.         Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
                                  
                                                                        Chief Executive Officer,
                                                             3.         Block   Education   Officer,   Panchayat
                                                                        Samiti, Teosa, District Amravati.
                                                             4.         The   State   of   Maharashtra,
      

                                                                        Department   of   Sports   and   School
                                                                        Education,   Mantralaya,   Mumbai   -
                                                                        400 032.
   



                                                                                                                                      

                  Shri A. M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Mrs. R. D. Raskar, Advocate for
                  the petitioner.





                  Shri Ambarish Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.



                          CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK
                                                           AND 





                                                A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
                           DATED
                                  :   29TH
                                              JANUARY, 2016.


                  ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. V.A. Naik, J)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:47:16 ::: wp6768.15.odt 2/4 finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, dated 30-10-2015 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta - vimukta jati.

Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, initially, the petitioner was under the impression that the petitioner had tendered a valid caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim, but it is realized after filing of the writ petition that the petitioner was required to submit a caste certificate as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 2012. It is stated that since the petitioner is in service from 1995, in the interest of justice, this Court may permit the petitioner to submit an appropriate caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee within a time frame so that the caste claim of the petitioner could be verified. It is submitted that since the petitioner is in service since the year 1995, the services of the petitioner should be protected till her caste claim is decided.

Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and the petitioner is still in service. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee as the Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected the caste claim of the petitioner since the petitioner had failed to produce a valid caste certificate as required by the provision of Rule 5 (As per Form 8) of the Rules of 2008. It is submitted that if the ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:47:16 ::: wp6768.15.odt 3/4 petitioner tenders a fresh caste certificate to the respondent - employer and the same is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee in the proper format, the Scrutiny Committee would decide the caste claim of the petitioner, as early as possible.

In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to partly allow the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Since the petitioner was under a bonafide impression that the petitioner had produced a valid caste certificate and since the petitioner is ready to submit an appropriate caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim, it would be necessary to permit the petitioner to do so within a period of two months so that the employer could refer the caste claim of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verification.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to tender a caste certificate in the proper form to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 within a period of two months. The petitioner should make the application for verification of the caste claim in the required format and submit the necessary documents to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 along with the caste certificate. The respondent Nos.2 & 3, in turn, should refer the caste claim of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the same. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of 15 months from the date of the receipt of the same.

::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:47:16 ::: wp6768.15.odt 4/4

Since the petitioner is in service from 1995, the services of the petitioner are protected till her caste claim is decided.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                       JUDGE                                                                   JUDGE 

                  //MULEY//




                                                                   
                                   
                                  
      
   






    ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2016                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:47:16 :::