Dismissed

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

Bombay HC12 Nov 2013WP/428/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging termination of service, the High Court refused protection of employment, holding that the petitioner's claimed caste was not included in the notified Special Backward Class Category under the relevant Government Resolution.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no legal right to claim the benefits of the Government Resolution.

Khatal Ahmad M. Kaseem Dandu Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp428.09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.428 OF 2009

¶5

Khatal Ahmad M.Kaseem Dandu V/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.A.M.Joshi i/by Mr.R.K.Mendadkar & S.H.K.Mandlik for the Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : 12th NOVEMBER, 2013.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent no.2 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to forthwith consider his representation dated 17.3.2008. The 2^nd relief that is claimed is of the same nature but directing withdrawal of the order of termination dated 24.1.2008 passed by the respondent no.3.

¶14

2 The order passed on 24.1.2008 proceeds on the footing that the petitioner was appointed as a reserved category candidate in the service of the said Corporation. That was on the condition that

¶15

1/5

¶16

wp428.09

¶17

the petitioner fulfills the requirement of having his caste claim verified and scrutinized by a competent scrutiny committee. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koya community. He joined the service as a reserved category candidate. His claim was referred to concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee but by order dated 28.12.2007 that committee invalidated the caste certificate and rejected his claim. The respondent no.3 relied upon that order of the scrutiny committee and terminated the service of the petitioner on 24.1.2008. The petitioner made representation to the 2^nd respondent on 17.3.2008 and invited his attention to Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995.

¶18

3 It is undisputed that the petitioner filed earlier in this Court a Writ Petition No.4183 of 2008 challenging the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. That writ petition was however, withdrawn by him.

¶19

4 Now the petitioner claims the benefits in terms of the Government Resolution referred to above and seeks protection of his services on the footing that he is special backward category candidate. We are afraid that we cannot accept the claim of the petitioner for more than one reason. The English translation of the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 which is annexed at Exhibit-

¶20

2/5

¶21

wp428.09

¶22

D to the petition prescribes that taking into account the demand for special concessions on the ground of socio-economic and educational backwardness by some other castes and tribes excluding those communities which have been specifically declared as scheduled castes and scheduled tribe in the State, the castes notified in this Government Resolution are declared as special backward class category. The Government therefore, was of the view that such people deserve protection and that their services so also other claim should not be denied.

¶23

5 On this factual footing, the petitioner approaches this Court. It is evident that the caste to which the petitioner claims to be belonging is not mentioned as a special backward class category. The petitioner's caste thus finds no reference or is not included in the special backward class category. Once it is not so included and was not notified, admittedly, then we cannot accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner's services deserves to be protected with reference to this Government Resolution. Government Resolution applies to those castes which have been declared as Special Backward Class Category. If the petitioner is not belonging to any of them then he cannot claim benefit of the said Government Resolution. It is well settled that the

¶24

3/5

¶25

wp428.09

¶26

issuance of writ of mandamus is based on the legal right and if that is not conferred in the petitioner then we cannot issue a writ of mandamus in the terms of the prayers in the writ petition.

¶27

6 Then the relief claimed is that the petitioner has rendered selfless service from 17.6.1982 and at the fag end of his career he has been terminated only because he could not establish his claim as belonging to Koya Scheduled Tribe. Reliance is placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court. (1) Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 549 ; (2) Kavita Solunke V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J.921.

¶28

7 It is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the directions of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the dismissal of the Writ petition granted benefit and relief only because the petitioners therein could not establish their claim as belonging to “Koshti” Scheduled Tribe. The services of a teacher after 10 years of service on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe was not on the footing that he had fabricated any documents or falsified the particulars. It is in these circumstances, purely in terms of the powers conferred by Article-142 of the Constitution of India that the

¶29

4/5

¶30

wp428.09

¶31

Supreme Court protected the services of the party/petitioner before it. That judgment can hardly assist the petitioner before us because we do not have any powers on par with Article-142 of the Constitution of India. Further, that judgment is distinguishable because the Tribe was mentioned as Scheduled Tribe but the petitioner could not establish his claim thereto. The petitioner before us has accepted the invalidation of his caste claim but is seeking protection of a Government Policy. If that benefit is to be extended to the petitioner, then, he must comply with the terms and conditions of the Government Resolution and policy. Admittedly that is not complied with, therefore, even the judgment in the case of Dattu V/s. State of Maharashtra cannot assist the petitioner in any manner.

¶32

8 For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in the Writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶34

5/5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khatal Ahmad M. Kaseem Dandu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayyed Sadat Education Society, through President Shri. Murtuza Tajuddin Patel Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and Ors.

Sanjay Ananda Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of School Education and Ors.

Shilatai Shrishail Teli Vs the Education Officer Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Having His Office at Sangli and Ors.

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

Manisha Rajaram Raut Vs Rajaram Tukaram Raut

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