Partly allowed

Kishor Vasantrao Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Apr 2014WP/1100/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Scrutiny Committee order invalidating a petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim without a hearing and the consequent termination of his service. The Court directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer and gave the Committee an opportunity to verify it with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's claim and the termination order from the Corporation were quashed. The petitioner was directed to obtain a fresh certificate within s

Kishor Vasantrao Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 1100.14wp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1100 OF 2014

¶4

Kishor s/o Vasantrao Sonawane, Age: 46 years, Occ: Conductor, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mandangad Depot under the Divisional Controller, State Transport, Ratnagiri,

¶5

R/o. Mandangad, Dist. Ratnagiri. ...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar.

¶9

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ratnagiri Division, Ratnagiri. ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Kalyan Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Tope, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

2 1100.14wp

¶13

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, & V.K. JADHAV,JJ.

¶14

DATE : 22nd April, 2014

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

. Leave to add 'Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon' as

¶17

party respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Notice to added respondent. Learned A.G.P. waives service for added respondent.

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent

¶19

heard finally.

¶20

This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26/06/2013 passed by the respondent No.2 Committee and also the termination order dated 19/09/2013

¶21

issued by respondent No. 3 Corporation.

¶22

3 1100.14wp

¶23

The petitioner claims that, he belongs to 'Tokre

¶24

Koli' scheduled tribe and he has received certificate to that effect. It is case of the petitioner that, his tribe claim was referred to respondent-committee for validation. He was appointed with respondent No. 3 on the post of reserved for scheduled tribe. His tribe claim was referred to respondent No.2-Committee, Nandurbar in the year 2007. It is further case of the petitioner that, when the matter was pending with the Committee at Nashik, the Tahsildar Jalgaon informed the committee that there is no entry of the certificate of the petitioner in the Register maintained by his office. On 26/06/2013, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. It is case of the petitioner that, his tribe claim is invalidated without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Consequent upon invalidation of tribe claim, the petitioner's services have been terminated w.e.f. 25/09/2013. vide order dated 19/09/2013. Hence, this petition.

¶25

4 1100.14wp

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶27

submits that, the point raised in this petition is no longer res-

¶28

integra and covered by the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7744 of 2013 [Mootilal s/o Bhagwat Sapkale vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] decided on 24/03/2014. He submits that, the facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of the unreported judgment.

¶29

In the light of above discussion, the petitioner is permitted to secure certificate from the competent authority and produce the same for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and by issuing further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to take decision on the proposal for verification of such tribe certificate in accordance with law. It would be open

¶30

for the petitioner to render application to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, for issuance of tribe certificate. If petitioner

¶31

tenders application within a period of six weeks from today,

¶32

5 1100.14wp

¶33

the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, after following the procedure under law, shall take decision in respect of issuance of tribe certificate in favour of petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The Sub Divisional Officer shall not refuse to issue tribe certificate in favour of the petitioner merely for the reason that, such certificate was issued on earlier occasion by the Executive Magistrate in the year 1989. On receipt of tribe certificate from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner shall submit proposal for verification of tribe certificate along with tribe certificate with respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt. The Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of proposal for verification of tribe certificate, after observing the procedure prescribed under law, shall take decision in the matter after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the

¶34

6 1100.14wp

¶35

proposal.

¶36

The order, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, on

¶37

26/06/2013, stands quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of termination dated 19/09/2013 issued by respondent No. 3 stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner will not be entitled for salary and back wages from the date of termination till date. However, for the continuity of service, said period should be taken into consideration. Respondent No. 3 is directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner until decision by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of validation of his tribe certificate.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall

¶39

be no order as to costs.

¶40

sd/- sd/- [ V.K. JADHAV, J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶41

Tupe/22.4.14

Kishor Vasantrao Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Vasantrao Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

M.J.P. Thr. Secretary Water Supply Mantralaya Mumbai and Others Vs Zahiroddin Fayazoddin Inamdar

Ashok Haridas Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Ramchandra Kamble Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sambhaji Narayan Dewate and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivparvati Vikas Sansthas Arts College, Rashin, Karjat, Dist.- Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madakini Bala Gadekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.