Bombay High Court
Kailash S/O Dagdu Bholwankar vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. Scrutiniy ... on 8 December, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, Swapna Joshi
wp6029.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6029/2016
PETITIONER: Kailash s/o Dagdu Bholwankar
Aged about 47 years, Occupation : Service,
r/o Hanuman Nagar, Malkapur, Tahsil
Malkapur, District Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee through its Member
Secretary, Bhatkuli Road, District Amravati.
2. The District Maleria Officer, Akola,
District Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for petitioner
Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 08.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, 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.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent no.2 to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 ::: wp6029.16.odt 2 Arogya Sevak, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
The petitioner was appointed as a Arogya Sevak on 10.6.1999 and after his services were terminated for not producing the caste validity certificate on 13.9.2011, the termination order was set aside by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 12.1.2016.
The petitioner was reinstated in service on 1.4.2016. Since the petitioner had claimed to belong to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe and was appointed on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes, the caste claim of the petitioner that was referred to the Scrutiny Committee was decided by the Scrutiny Committee on 20.6.2016 and the claim is invalidated. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee but has only sought the protection of his services by giving-up his caste claim.
Shri Khati, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1999 and though there is an observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has secured the caste certificate by suppression of material facts, there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had interpolated the documents or fabricated them to secure the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that in the passing, an observation is made by the Scrutiny ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 ::: wp6029.16.odt 3 Committee in regard to the suppression of documents by the petitioner, as in most of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner the caste was recorded as Koli. It is stated that the observation of the Scrutiny Committee should not come in the way of the petitioner while seeking protection, as the petitioner had not fabricated the documents or produced false documents for the purpose of securing the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the said observation is a stray observation and the same may not adversely affect the case of the petitioner, while seeking the benefit of protection of his services.
Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute about the position of law, as laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, states that there is an observation in paragraph 4 of the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner must have secured the caste certificate from the competent authority by suppressing the documents in which the caste of the relatives of the petitioner was recorded as Koli.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::wp6029.16.odt 4 On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that in the circumstances of the case, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1999, before the cut off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fabricated the documents for the purpose of securing the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It appears that merely because in most of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, the caste is recorded as Koli, the Scrutiny Committee has made an observation that the petitioner must have secured the caste certificate by suppressing the material documents before the competent authority. We find that the caste claim of the petitioner is rejected as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test. In our view, the observation made by the Scrutiny Committee would not come in the way of the petitioner, while seeking the protection of his services.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of Arogya Sevak on the condition that the petitioner submits an undertaking in this Court and also before the respondent no.2, within four weeks, that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would seek the benefits meant for the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, in future.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::wp6029.16.odt 5 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:54 :::