Bombay High Court
Sau. Bharti Sharad Sontakke vs The Education Officer (Secondary), ... on 10 February, 2016
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, A.S.Chandurkar
914-wp-1797-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1797 OF 2015
Bharti Sharad Sontakke
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Ashirwad Bhavan,
Ranpise Nagar, Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola. ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Washim, Tq. And Dist. Washim
2. Shri Shivaji Education Society Amravati,
Through its Secretary, Amravati,
Tq & Dist. Amravati.
3. Shri Shivaji Higher Secondary School,
Wanoja, Tq. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim.
4. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2.
Akola, Thr. Member Secretary, Amravati Division,
Amravati. ... Respondents.
Shri A. R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 4.
Shri A. P. Kalmegh, counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2016.
Oral Judgment : (As per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 ::: 914-wp-1797-15 2/5 consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication of the respondent No.2 Society dated 27/03/2015 directing the petitioner to submit the caste validity certificate or else her services would be terminated.
The petitioner has sought the protection of her services in the circumstance of the case.
In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 on 26/06/1995, the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Drawing Teacher, that was earmarked for the Scheduled Castes. The caste of the petitioner was Kunbi by birth, that falls in the Other Backward Castes but since the petitioner was married to Sharad Sontakke who belongs to the Scheduled Castes, the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Caste on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 21/01/1976. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of the caste certificate that she belongs to Chambhar caste which is included in the Scheduled Castes. The husband of the petitioner possessed a caste validity certificate of Chambhar caste (Scheduled Caste). The petitioner received a communication from the respondent No.2 dated 27/03/2015 asking the petitioner to submit a validity certificate of Scheduled Caste category or else her services would be terminated. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 ::: 914-wp-1797-15 3/5 that the petitioner had applied for appointment on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 27/01/1976. It is submitted that by the said resolution, a woman marrying to a man belonging to a particular caste was entitled to claim the certificate of the caste of the husband. It is submitted that on the basis of the said resolution, the petitioner secured a caste claim for employment on 30/06/1993. It is submitted that the petitioner had not practiced fraud while seeking the appointment and her claim for appointment was based on the Government Resolution dated 27/01/1976. It is submitted that a woman married to a man belonging to a particular caste was entitled to seek benefit of the caste of her husband till she was prevented from doing so by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in case of Mrs Valsammapaul vs. Cochin University and ors. AIR 1996 SC 1011. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for appointment and was also appointed before the aforesaid judgment was rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is submitted that in the peculiar circumstances, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. The learned counsel relied on the unreported decision in case of Sunita Vinayak Gosavi vs. Ekatmata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Chandur, dated 21/01/2015 in W.P. No.588 of 2014 to substantiate his submission.
Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Education Authority and Shri Kalmegh, the learned counsel ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 ::: 914-wp-1797-15 4/5 for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not dispute that the services of the woman like the petitioner could be protected in the circumstances of the case and in view of the unreported decision of this Court dated 21/01/2015 in W.P. No.588 of 2014. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Government had issued a resolution dated 27/01/1976 permitting a woman marrying a man belonging to a particular caste to claim the caste certificate of the caste of her husband.
If that was so, there was nothing wrong with the action on the part of the petitioner in securing the caste certificate of Chambhar caste which falls in the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner claimed appointment on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 21/01/1976. Benefits were granted to the women like the petitioner on the basis of the Government Resolution referred to herein above till the matter on the said issue was set at rest by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Valsammapaul (supra) wherein it was held that a woman marrying a man belonging to a particular caste could not claim the benefits of the caste of her husband. The petitioner had applied for the post of Drawing Teacher before the Honourable Supreme Court had rendered the judgment in Valsammapaul (supra). In the ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 ::: 914-wp-1797-15 5/5 aforesaid set of facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner had played a fraud while securing the appointment on the post of Drawing Teacher with the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since the petitioner was not at fault in seeking appointment on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Castes in the year 1995, the services of the petitioner are required to be protected, more so when the petitioner is working as a Drawing Teacher without any complaint for nearly twenty years. The case of the petitioner is supported by the decision of this Court dated 21/01/2015 in W.P. No.588 of 2014 where the relief of protection of services were granted in similar set of facts.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to protect the services of the petitioner as a Drawing Teacher. The concerned department of the State Government should absorb the petitioner in the appropriate reserved category, in accordance with law.
The protection of services would be subject to the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this Court and to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of one month that the petitioner would not seek any benefits meant for the Scheduled Castes, in future.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:36:02 :::