Partly allowed

Pallavi Arun Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2010CA/12954/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.3053 of 2007, the applicant sought a stay on the invalidation of her caste claim and protection from adverse action. The court rejected the stay prayer but directed respondents not to take adverse action against the petitioner's services pending the petition's outcome, denying promotional benefits based on Scheduled Tribe status.

What did the court decide?

Stay on invalidation of caste claim rejected; direction issued not to take adverse action against petitioner's services based on tribal claim invalidation; promotional benefits denied.

Pallavi Arun Thakur Vs the State of Mah… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

{1}

¶2

ca1295410.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12953 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3053 OF 2007

¶5

Kum. Pallavi d/o Arun Thakur

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for applicant. Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr.R.P.Phatke, advocate with Mr.Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, Special Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND

¶12

R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 06th December, 2010

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

This is an application for amendment.

¶15

Civil Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried

¶16

out within a period of two weeks from today.

R.M.BORDE JUDGE

B.R.GAVAI

JUDGE

adb/ca1295410

{2}

ca1295410.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶24

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12954 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3053 OF 2007

¶25

Kum. Pallavi d/o Arun Thakur

¶26

Applicant

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶29

Respondents

¶30

Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for applicant. Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr.R.P.Phatke, advocate with Mr.Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, Special Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶31

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND

¶32

R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 06th December, 2010

¶33

PER COURT:

¶34

1 By way of present Civil Application, the applicant is seeking a direction to Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner on the ground of invalidation of her caste claim and for further stay to the decision of the Committee invalidating caste claim of the petitioner.

¶35

2 Insofar as prayer for grant of stay to the order of Committee regarding invalidation is concerned, we are not inclined to grant stay to the decision of the Committee and said prayer, therefore, stands rejected.

¶36

ca1295410.odt

¶37

{3}

¶38

3 However, insofar as protection to the services of petitioner is concerned, we are inclined to grant the same. Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 are directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner on the ground of invalidation of her tribal claim till the decision of the present petition. It is, however, made clear that petitioner would not be entitled to any promotional benefits on the ground of she belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

¶39

4 Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE

¶41

adb/ca1295410

Pallavi Arun Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi Arun Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Fertiland Industries,through M.D.Anilkumar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt Haribai Mahadeo Thaware Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sheshrao Bhanudas Kakde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sunita Shekhar Desarda and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Muktai Gulab Deoraj Vs Scheduled Tribe Certiricate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Member Secretary and Anr.