Dismissed

Tushar Vilas Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2014WP/1002/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate and remanded the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity to adduce evidence, granting interim protection for four weeks under the Madhuri Jadhav judgment guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration; liberty granted to adduce evidence; interim protection granted for four weeks; direction to University to permit continuation of internship

Tushar Vilas Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dgm 1 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2012 WITH

¶5

CAW/678/2014

¶6

Tushar Vilas Thakur aged 21 years, residing at NGB 301, 3rd Floor, Sai Enclave, C Wing, Hariali Village, Near Reliance Fresh, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-83 .... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane through its Member Secretary, having its office at Vartak Nagar Ward Committee Office, Vedant Complex, Opp. Kores Co Vartak Nagar, Thane (West), Dist. Thane

¶10

3 Competent Authority and Director, Medical Education and Research, Maharashtra State, having its office, at Govt.Dental College Bldg., St. George's Hospital Compound, Near CST, Mumbai 400 001

¶11

1/6

¶12

dgm 2 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶13

4 Government Medical College, Sangli Dist. Sangli through its Principal at Sangli.

¶14

5 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik through its Registrar, having its Mu;mbai office at Govt. Dental College, Bldg., St. George's Hospital, Complex, near CST, Mumbai 400001

¶15

6 Deputy Collector, Sindhudurg, having its office at Kudal, Dist. Sindhudurg. .... Respondents

¶16

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Helan Koli-Mandlik for the petitioner.

¶17

Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. S.B. Shetye for respondent No.5.

¶18

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶19

M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶20

DATE : March 13, 2014

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):

¶22

Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for

¶23

Respondents waive service.

¶24

2 Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶25

2/6

¶26

dgm 3 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶27

3 The Petitioner is claiming to be belonging to ThakurScheduled Tribe caste, but the Respondent/Scrutiny Committee by the impugned order invalidated her caste claim. Therefore, the present Petition.

¶28

4 The Petitioner, pursuant to orders passed by this Court from time to time, able to complete the Course and appeared even in Third (2) Year M.B.B.S. Examination held in Winter-2013 which was subject to result of the present Petition.

¶29

5 In view of our judgment dated 26 February 2014

¶30

in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 - Madhuri Nitin Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., along with connected matters, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order so passed as case is made out to quash and set aside the same and remand for rehearing on every aspect as recorded in the judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, read and submitted various judgments in support of his contention basically revolving around the aspect of consideration of caste certificates of relations of the Petitioner

¶31

3/6

¶32

dgm 4 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶33

and also in support of his case for affinity test and the effect of removal of area restriction. We have dealt with all the above subjects in our above judgments.

¶34

6 For the view that we have taken and considering the documents placed on record and as read and referred by the Scrutiny Committee, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order in the following terms :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

a) Impugned order dated 5 December 2011 is quashed and set aside.

¶37

b) The matter is remanded back to the Competent Authority, for reconsideration.

¶38

c) The Competent Authority to re-consider every aspect, by giving an opportunity to all the parties.

¶39

d) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply before the Competent Authority for filing additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary material.

¶40

4/6

¶41

dgm 5 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶42

e) The Petitioner to appear before Respondent No.2 Committee on 26 March 2014. Thereafter, the Authority to fix the date and programme accordingly with endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible and within four months from the date of receipt of of order.

¶43

f) In case, Respondent No.2-Competent Authority passes an adverse order against the Petitioner, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order.

¶44

g) For the above reasons, therefore, at this stage, we are also inclined to direct Respondent No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner on the basis of his caste (Thakur Scheduled Tribe) for promotion, if he is otherwise eligible for the post. However, this will be again subject to final decision of Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of above order. No question of claiming

¶45

5/6

¶46

dgm 6 903-wp-1002-12 with caw-678-14.sxw

¶47

any equities.

¶48

h) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶49

i) All the parties to co-operate.

¶50

j) Civil Application also for the above reasons stands disposed of.

¶51

k) The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court in Writ Petition / Civil Application to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter.

¶52

l) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

m) Respondent NO.5-University to declare the result and issue provisional certificate for Third (2) M.B.B.S. Examination and permit her to continue with internship. This is, however, again subject to the final decision of the Scrutiny Committee.

¶54

n) The adverse order, if any, against the Petitioner, the interim order/direction issued by this Court to continue for a further period of four weeks.

¶55

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶56

6/6

Tushar Vilas Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Vilas Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaykumar Kisanrao Khillare Vs State of Maharashtra Thrrough Secretary and Ors.

Vijaykumar Kisanrao Khillare Vs State of Maharashtra Thrrough Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Dr. Anuradha Rajeev Dube, through Constituted Attorney, Mr. Bhavik Seth Vs Dy. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, K/E-Ward and Anr.

Smt. Lata Anandrao Dange Vs New English School Miraj through Its Head Master and Ors.

Union of India through Secretary, Dept. of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel and Ors. Vs Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and Ors.

The Commandant, Central Armoured Fighting Vehicle Depot Vs Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and Ors.