Dismissed

Shri. Udaram Bapurao Likhar v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2014WP/11205/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition entertaining a claim for protection of services against termination, the Division Bench dismissed the petition as the petitioner's claim for Schedule Tribe status was rejected by the committee well before the crucial Apex Court judgment in Kavita Solunke was delivered, distinguishing the facts.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Udaram Bapurao Likhar Vs Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp11205.12.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11205 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Udaram S/o Bapurao Likhar V/s.	...	Petitioner
Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Pune & ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner. Mrs. Shakuntala Wadekar, AGP for the State. Mr. Sanjeev J. Rairkar a/w. Nikhil Vidhwans for respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶8

16th September, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner's caste claim as belonging to Halba- Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected by the Schedule Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur by an order dated 24th September, 2009. He was appointed by an order dated 9th December, 1999. At the relevant time petitioner was discharging his duties as Gram-Sevak in Panchayat Samiti.

¶12

The petitioner challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee before the High Court. The Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 9283/2009 dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner by an order dated 3rd February, 2010. A Special Leave petition preferred against the order of the High Court came to be dismissed by the Apex Court by an order dated 16th August, 2010. The

¶13

2/4 wp11205.12.sxw

¶14

petitioner's services were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer by an order dated 12th November, 2010.

¶15

The petitioner thereafter presented this petition on 30th October, 2012. with the following substantive prayers.

¶16

“ (i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Pune, in the interest of justice;

¶17

(iii) protect the service of the petitioner in view of Milind Katware's case, in the interest of justice;”

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. {2012 (5) Mh. L.J } and the view adopted by the Division Bench in a batch of Writ Petition Nos. 8014/2012, 6323/2013, 5196/2013, 11518/2012, 11740/2012 and 5098/2013 dated 22^nd November, 2013 the necessary directions be issued for setting aside the termination order dated 12th November, 2010 and for consequential relief of reinstatement in service. It is submitted that petitioner claims to be Halba-Scheduled Tribe which claim was negated by the Scrutiny Committee. While appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner, the Committee did not observe that the petitioner obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud or adopted any malpractices. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke(cited supra) , the petitioner is entitled to raise this issue independently.

¶19

3/4 wp11205.12.sxw

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that petitioner in the facts of the case is not entitled to take benefit of the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke (cited supra). The petitioner claim to be scheduled tribe which claim was negated by the Committee. The Committee did not opine that petitioner belong to 'Koshti'. It was submitted by the Counsel that before the High Court the petitioner claimed protection in view of the Government Resolution dated 5th March, 2009 to the services of the petitioner. The High Court declined to grant such protection. The special leave petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The judgment of Kavita Solunkhe (cited supra) was delivered on 9th August, 2012 whereas petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 12th November, 2010.

¶21

We have perused the orders passed by the Committee, Division Bench of this court and the Apex Court. We have perused the judgment of Kavita Solunkhe (cited supra). The Division Bench while dismissing the petition filed by the writ petitioner observed as under:-

¶22

“ Heard the learned Counsel. It has been held by the Scrutiny committee that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Schedule Tribe is not valid. Now there is no question, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomedic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,2000, of protecting the services of the petitioner which he obtained by

¶23

4/4

¶24

wp11205.12.sxw

¶25

representing that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The Government Resolution dated 5.3.2009 will also not help the petitioner because if that Government Resolution is taken to mean that the services of such persons should be protected, it is contrary to the provisions of the above referred Act. The petition is, therefore, rejected.”

¶26

The petitioner failed to get protection to his services in the High Court and his SLP in the Apex Court came to be dismissed. The petitioner's claim before the Committee was that he belongs to 'Halba' and not 'Koshti' or Halba-Koshti. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Committee to distinguish and consider as to whether the petitioner belongs to 'Halba or 'Koshti'. The another distinguishing feature is that petitioner's prayer for grant of protection under Government Resolution dated 5th March, 2009 was rejected by the High Court. The judgment in the case of Kavita Solunkhe (cited supra) was delivered on 9^th August, 2012 by the Apex Court. Much prior to said date the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 2010.

¶27

In the light of these facts as stated above, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter by granting protection to the petitioner at this stage which would amount to directing reinstatement of petitioner in service. We do not find it proper and reasonable to allow the prayers. In the light of facts of the case as stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶28

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶29

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶30

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Shri. Udaram Bapurao Likhar v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Udaram Bapurao Likhar v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu Vs the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Manisha Shankarrao Dhawle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. a. P. Gurgule Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan and Ors. Vs Smt. P. M. Mulay

Shri. Ghodke Rahul Nivrutti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.