Disposed

Sandeep Pandurang Shelke v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2014WP/1765/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal for being appointed under ST reservation while holding OBC certificate. High Court declined to adjudicate merits before final departmental order, directed department to afford hearing, and disposed of petition noting prima facie nature of direction.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Court directed departmental authority to hear petitioner personally; view expressed is prima facie.

Sandeep Pandurang Shelke Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

906.WPLNo.18172014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1817 OF 2014

¶4

Mr.Sandeep Pandurang Shelke	...	Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors.	...	Respondents

¶5

Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Bhate, Senior Counsel a/w. Dhanesh R. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent/UOI.

¶6

Mr.Pankaj Vijayan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM :NARESH H.PATIL & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED :15TH JULY, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The petitioner applied against an advertisement issued by the Punjab National Bank, Government of India Undertaking against the post reserved for Schedule Tribes. The petitioner was selected as a clerk and was appointed consequently by the respondent bank. Petitioner initially produced a Caste Certificate (annexed at Exh.D) issued by SubDivisional Officer, Ratnagiri dated 14/10/2005 certifying that he belongs to DHANGAR–29 which is recognized as Nomadic Tribe (C) under the

¶11

Government Resolution issued by the Social Welfare Department of the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter, the petitioner produced another

1/4

Gaikwad RD

906.WPLNo.18172014

certificate (annexed at Exh.E) dated 05/02/2013 issued by the Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District certifying that he belongs to Dhangar Caste at Entry No.28 in the Central List which is recognized as a Backward Class.

¶16

It was noticed by the bank that the certificate produced by the petitioner was of NT (C). As the petitioner was appointed against the post reserved for the S.T., a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed his reply in the Departmental Enquiry.

¶17

The respondent Bank has proposed punishment of dismissal through notice dated 21/06/2014 which is under challenge in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that the caste which was included in the Central List is applicable to the State of Maharashtra in the category of S.T, though the petitioner obtained the certificate certifying him as NT(C). Later on, he obtained a certificate certifying him as Dhangar Caste at Entry No.28 in the Central List. The petitioner is requesting that though he had applied for the post reserved for S.T., he

2/4

Gaikwad RD

906.WPLNo.18172014

could be considered to have been appointed against the seat reserved for O.B.C. It is submitted that there is no need to initiate a Departmental Enquiry and pass a consequential order of dismissal on this ground. The issue could be sympathetically looked into.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that the petitioner failed to produce any record showing that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner applied against the post reserved for S.T. As he has failed to produce any cogent record, necessary inquiry was initiated. The counsel submits that it would be pre-mature at this stage to interfere till the bank authority hears the petitioner and passes an appropriate order.

¶23

We have perused the record placed before us. As the matter is at a final stage with the Departmental Authority, we are not inclined to express anything on merits. The petitioner would be heard personally by the Departmental Authority before passing a final order. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction that in case an adverse order is passed, it shall not take effect for two weeks. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner was

3/4

Gaikwad RD

906.WPLNo.18172014

intimated that he is entitled for a personal hearing on 17/07/2014.

¶28

In case the petitioner seeks a week's adjournment for personal hearing, the Departmental Authority shall consider the same.

¶29

In the facts of the case, therefore, we are not inclined to pass further orders. We expect that the respondent bank would accord appropriate hearing to the petitioner and adopt a circumspect view considering the attending facts and circumstances. The petition is disposed of.

¶30

It is clarified that the view expressed by this Court is prima facie in nature and is not of conclusive nature. The Departmental Authority is free to take an appropriate decision accordingly.

¶31

(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.) (NARESH .H.PATIL, J.)

¶32

4/4

¶33

Gaikwad RD

Sandeep Pandurang Shelke v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pandurang Shelke v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

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

Mr. Suniel Shetty Vs Anytime India Fitness Private Limited - U92410MH2009PTC191245

M/S. Prankster Inn Pvt.Ltd Vs Anytime India Fitness Private Limited - U92410MH2009PTC191245

Shri Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Anr. Vs Smt. Jaiwanthiben Jairamdas Jaising Alias Jaiwanti J. Jaising Alias J.J. Jaising

Janardhan Gangaram Kottur Vs Kottur @ Kutta Rajaram Sayanna @ Kottur Rajaram Sayanna @ Rajaram Sayanna Kutha (Deceased)

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Rustom Padam Bharucha and Anr. Vs Perin Padam Bharucha