Dismissed

Ram S/O Ravindra Kolhe and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare Mumbai and 6 Others

Bombay HC18 Jul 2013WP/3729/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a writ petition challenging the issuance of a Non Creamy-layer Certificate. The petitioners argued their parents' income exceeded the limit based on the application date, but the court held the three-year income criteria under the prevailing rules were satisfied and the certificate was correctly issued.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition rejected; no order as to costs.

Ram S/O Ravindra Kolhe and Another Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

187wp3729.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3729 OF 2013

¶5

(Ram s/o Ravindra Kolhe & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra thr. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. JULY 18, 2013.

¶8

Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7.

¶9

Respondents No. 6 & 7 have been issued Non Creamy-layer Certificate. The petitioners challenged it on the ground that their income in 2012-13 exceeded Rs. Six lakh and hence they belonged to Creamy-layer.

¶10

Shri Gilda, learned counsel, points out that application for seeking Non Creamy-layer Certificate was moved on 02.05.2013, application was pending till 02.07.2013 and after complaint was made by the petitioners, immediately Non Creamy-layer Certificate was issued. He submits that the petitioners got the knowledge that both parents are in service and, therefore, income of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 exceeded the maximum required income, as per the Government

¶11

¶12

187wp3729.13

¶13

Resolution. He further contends that a fortuitous circumstance of increase in that ceiling by Government Resolution dated 24.06.2013, cannot, in this situation, be determinative and the date of application i.e. 02.05.2013 must only be looked into.

¶14

The respective counsel for the respondents oppose the petition. They point out that appropriate reply was given to complaint filed by the petitioners and the Government has consistently informed all its authorities, issuing certificates, not to arrive at an average and also that the income in past three years must exceed the ceiling limit prescribed. Similar stipulation in Government Resolution dated 24.06.2013 is also pointed out.

¶15

The revision in ceiling insofar as such Non Creamy-layer certificate is concerned, is a policy decision and there cannot be and there is no challenge to it. The same, therefore, cannot be referred to as a fortuitous circumstance. Similarly, even if a certificate would have been issued immediately to Respondents No. 6 & 7 before 24.06.2013, they could have again applied for Non Creamy-layer certificate, in the light of revised norms in Government Resolution dated 24.06.2013. In this situation, the insistence of relevance of date of application also is misconceived.

¶16

The learned counsel has also contended that the revision by State Government is based upon Office Memorandum dated 27.05.2013 issued by the

¶17

¶18

187wp3729.13

¶19

Government of India. The Government of India, has in said Office Memorandum dated 27.05.2013, has declared that except for change in figure, all other conditions remained the same. The contention cannot be countenanced. The Government Resolution dated 24.06.2013 specifically stipulates relevance of income of past three years and hence the Competent Authority has appropriately looked into it. The requirement is, income of each of past three years must exceed Rs. Six lakh. The requirement is not that the income should not exceed Rs. Six lakh in any one year of the past three years.

¶20

In this situation, no case is made out warranting interference in present matter. Writ Petition is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

*GS.

Ram S/O Ravindra Kolhe and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare Mumbai and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram S/O Ravindra Kolhe and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare Mumbai and 6 Others

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

Sanjay S/O Dinesh Tulshan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Mineralas and Revenue Dept. and Others

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc. Federation,Thr. Its Chairman Ramnath B.Kalsarp Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation

Executive Engineer (Vidc) Lowar Wardha Project Division Vs Annasaheb Mahadeorao Thakre and Others

M/S B.K. Suramwar and Co. through Proprietor Shri Chandrakant Banuraoji Suramwar Vs Municipal Council Gadchriroli and Others

The S.L.A. Officer and Another Vs Smt.Sumitra Ganpat Kuthe

Orbit Super Market Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Represented by Its Director Rajendra S/O Rambhau Akolkar Vs Smt. Mukta Arvind Bobde and Others