Allowed

Omprakash Ramdev Panwar v. Govt. of India through Sec. Ministery of Social Justice and Empowerment

Bombay HC18 Dec 2013WP/3645/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed the impugned order which rejected a caste certificate on residence grounds. The court held that the Committee must scrutinize and verify the certificate under the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 since the petitioner was employed by a public sector undertaking based on the certificate. The petition was allowed, directing the Committee to re-examine the claim within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order; directed the Committee to scrutinize the certificate under the Act and Rules within four months without being influenced by earlier orders.

Omprakash Ramdev Panwar Vs Govt. of India through Sec… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp3645-12.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3645 OF 2012

¶3

Omprakash Ramdev Panwar .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶4

Mr..A.V.Chatuphale for petitioner Mr.S.S.Pakale i/b. N.R.Prajapati for Union of India Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for respondentsMr.R.S.Pai with Ms.Radha Ved i/b. Sanjay Udeshi for respondent No.5

¶5

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ Date : 18^th December 2013.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

1] Heard Mr.Chatuphale appearing for petitioner. Perused

¶8

the impugned order. We have also perused the petition and the annexures thereto. In the memo of the petition, the petitioners have specifically referred to the fact that the committee in question called for the comments and recommendations of vigilance cell. It was undertaking the scrutiny of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner

¶9

¶10

wp3645-12.doc

¶11

certifying him as belonging to Hindu Khatik which is a caste also recognised as scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. This court directed that the scrutiny be undertaken and completed within the time schedule stipulated in this Court's order. At that time and even thereafter, this court notes that the petitioner was called for hearing on 21^st June 2011 and 9^th August 2011. Several documents have been filed and reports have been called for. In such circumstances and

¶12

when this Court directed the scrutiny and verification of the caste claim of the petitioner, the scrutiny committee could not have returned the certificate without any scrutiny and verification only on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim

¶13

benefits of the said caste in Maharashtra as he does not fulfill requirement of residence. The Committee was obliged in terms of this court's order and in peculiar facts to scrutinise and verify the claim. If the claim was not tenable, then, at the threshold itself, the Committee should have refused to entertain it. It could have refused to scrutinise and verify it. Having not done

¶14

¶15

wp3645-12.doc

¶16

that but having called for vigilence cell recommendations and taking documents and reports on file, the Committee was not then justified in returning the certificate to the petitioner on the ground that it cannot scrutinise it as the petitioner fails to fulfill the requirement of residence in Maharashtra.

¶17

2] To say that a scrutiny of the caste certificate will have to be undertaken before any benefit in law can be claimed is different than saying that on the strength of such certificate a person like petitioner is disentitled to claim benefits and concession meant for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes because he is not fulfilling the condition of residence

¶18

within the State. The later part touches the concessions and benefits which flow from issuance of caste certificate and which are admissible only after a validity certificate is issued in terms of the applicable law.

¶19

3] In such circumstances when the caste certificate was

¶20

¶21

wp3645-12.doc

¶22

issued and brought within the State of Maharashtra for employment based on which the appointment has been given by none other than a public sector undertaking/ company namely Mazgaon Dock Ltd., then, the scrutiny and verification in terms of the Act namely Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 should have been undertaken and completed.

¶23

4] The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is quashed and set aside. The Committee shall now scrutinise the certificate in accordance with the Act and the Rules and render its finding. Let that be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and without being influenced by any observations and findings in the earlier order. Petition is allowed in the above terms. Let the petitioner appear before the Committee in terms of this order on 27^th January 2013.

¶24

(REVATI MOHITE DERE J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Omprakash Ramdev Panwar v. Govt. of India through Sec. Ministery of Social Justice and Empowerment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Ramdev Panwar v. Govt. of India through Sec. Ministery of Social Justice and Empowerment

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

Manisha Rajaram Raut Vs Rajaram Tukaram Raut

Khatal Ahmad M. Kaseem Dandu Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khatal Ahmad M. Kaseem Dandu Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Kumari Prachi Pramod Borkar

The Orietnal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Subha Rajan Desai

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Subha Rajan Desai