Dismissed

Nandkishore Chandrakant Rahatekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2006WP/3025/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal of caste certificate as 'Tirmal Nomadic Tribe' and applicability of reservation general resolution to his service. Court dismissed writ petition, holding petitioner failed to appear at remand, finding of competent committee was not open to interference, and application of reservation order was for the corporation to decide.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected summarily except for direction to the Pune Municipal Corporation to consider petitioner's representation claim under GR dated 30.6.2004 within eight weeks.

Nandkishore Chandrakant Rahatekar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 3025 OF 2006

¶4

 Nandkishor Chandrakant Rahatekar ..Petitioner
 Vs.

¶5

 State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents

¶6

 Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for petitioner.
 Mr. R.D. Rane, Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1
 and 3.

¶7

 Mr. R.G. Ketkar for respondent no.2.

¶8

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ.

¶9

 Date : December 04, 2006.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard Mr. Mendadkar the learned counsel for

¶12

 the petitioner who is an employee of the Pune

¶13

 Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims that he

¶14

 belongs to caste "Tirmal" which is a Nomadic tribe in
 the State of Maharashtra. His caste claim was

¶15

 invalidated by the competent scrutiny committee i.e.
 respondent no.3 by its decision dated 25/5/2004 and,
 therefore, he had approached this court in Writ
 Petition No.6313 of 2004. The said petition was
 disposed off in terms of the minutes of order dated
 7/10/2004. The minutes of order read as under:-

¶16

:2:

¶17

 "1. Rule. By consent rule is made
 returnable forthwith.

¶18

 2. By consent, impugned order dated
 25/5/2004 passed by Respondent No.2 &
 Communication dated 5/6/2004 issued by
 Respondent No.3 are quashed & set aside. The
 case of the petitioner is remitted back to
 Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in
 accordance with law, preferably within 6
 months.

¶19

 3. The parties are at liberty to produce
 documents. All contentions of parties are
 kept open.

¶20

 4. In case, the decision of Respondent
 No.2 goes adverse to the petitioner, the same
 will not be given effect for a period of 4
 weeks from the date of service upon the
 petitioner.

¶21

 5. With above directions, petition is
 disposed."

¶22

 2. The respondent no.3, therefore, reopened the

¶23

 petitioner’s tribe’s claim and by a fresh decision
 dated 22/3/2006 again held that the petitioner does
 not belong to "Tirmal Nomadic Tribe" and the caste
 certificate dated 29/9/1981 issued to that effect by
 the Special Executive Magistrate, Nagpur was held to
 be invalid. This order in the second round has been

¶24

 challenged by the petitioner.

¶25

:3:

¶26

 3. We have heard Mr. Mendadkar the learned

¶27

 counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasoning
 set out in the fresh order dated 22/3/2006 passed by
 the respondent no..3-committee it is evident that the
 petitioner failed to appear before the respondent
 no.3-committee on remand and this refusal on behalf of
 the petitioner to appear before the Committee emanates

¶28

 from his belief that it was respondent
 no.2-corporation who was directed to consider his case
 and the Committee had nothing to do with the issue and
 that its earlier decision was set aside. We find no
 force in these contentions. Writ Petition No.6313 of
 2004 was disposed off on the minutes of order signed
 by the petitioner’s learned counsel as well as the
 learned AGP and the respondent no.2-corporation was
 not represented though it was a party. In the said
 minutes of the order there was a typing mistake in as
 much as instead of "respondent no.3", it was stated
 "respondent no.2" and this typographical mistake was
 not pointed out to this court at any time by the
 learned counsel for the petitioner or the learned AGP.
 We are, therefore, satisfied that while setting aside

¶29

:4:

¶30

 the earlier decision dated 25/5/2004 the respondent
 no.3-committee was called upon to re-adjudicate on the
 petitioner’s tribal claim. We are also satisfied that
 the documents submitted by the petitioner as well as
 vigilance inquiry report have been duly considered by
 the committee and its finding that the petitioner does
 not belong to "Tirmal Nomadic Tribe" does not call for
 any interference.

¶31

 4. Mr. Mendadkar the learned counsel for the
 petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has
 given up his claim of Nomadic tribe and he only wanted
 his representation dated 10-10-2006, a copy of which
 has been placed before us, to be considered and
 decided by the respondent no.2-corporation on the
 basis of the GR dated 30/6/2004. Clause-A of the said
 GR reads as under.

¶32

 "A. Those non-tribals who have obtained
 Government or Semi-Government service or
 promotion on the post reserved for scheduled
 tribe before 15th June, 1995, should not be
 terminated from service or reverted. They
 should be shown to the category to which they
 belong. The are entitled henceforth to the
 benefits of reservation of respective

¶33

:5:

¶34

 categories. As such the posts falling vacant
 should be filled in from the scheduled tribe."

¶35

 5. The term "Scheduled Tribes" has been defined
 under Article 366 (25) which means such tribes or
 tribal communities or parts of or groups within such
 tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under
 article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of
 this Constitution.

¶36

 6. It is thus clear that the GR dated 30/6/2004
 as relied upon by the petitioner is applicable to the
 scheduled tribes and the petitioner’s claim that he
 belongs to "Tirmal Nomadic Tribe" has been negatived
 by the respondent no.3-committee. Under these
 circumstances, it is for the corporation to decide
 whether the said GR is applicable to the petitioner or
 not. Mr. Ketkar the learned counsel appearing for
 the respondent no.2-corporation also referred to
 Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
 Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
 Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

¶37

:6:

¶38

 Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
 Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. We need
 not deliberate on this issue of the petitioner’s
 representation referred to hereinabove and it is
 entirely for the respondent no.2-Corporation to
 consider the same on its own merits and as per law.
 However, such a decision be taken as expeditiously as
 possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks
 from today.

¶39

 7. Save and except the above directions, the

¶40

 petition stands rejected summarily.

¶41

(J.H. Bhatia, J.)(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Nandkishore Chandrakant Rahatekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishore Chandrakant Rahatekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangrao Shamrao Korane Vs the Registrar, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital and Ors.

Sunil Kansal Vs Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.

Bhauso Shankar Kamale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

United Mazdoor Union Vs Aluminite Private Ltd.and Ors.

Yeravda Stud and Agricultural Farm Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sohanlal Kundanmal Jain Vs Dominic Albert Lobo