Quashed

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014WP/1796/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, appointed in 1996 against a vacant non-reserved post, challenged a 2013 communication demanding caste validity verification and withholding salary bills. The Court, finding the post was open and no reservation was claimed, quashed the demand and ordered expedited payment of withheld bills.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order/communication demanding caste validity verification is quashed. Salary bills are directed to be processed and paid expeditiously.

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp 1796.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1796 OF 2014

¶4

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Service, Junior Clerk, Shri Balaji Vidyalaya Narala Paithan District Aurangabad Resident of Saliwada, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secretary General Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶7

The Dnyan Probodhani Shikshan Sanstha Paithan, through its Chairman, Devidasrao Rangnathrao Kulkarni, Age : 60 years, Occu. : Chairman, Rangar Hati, Paitha, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

(The Respondent No. 2 deleted vide order dated 24.03.2014.)

¶9

The Head Master, Balaji Vidyalaya, Narala, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶10

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. .. Respondents

¶11

2 wp 1796.14

¶12

Smt. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Tope, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Shri A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2014.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶16

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶17

The petitioner assails the order/communication dated 28.11.2013 issued by the Head Master i. e. the respondent No. 3.

¶18

Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 on a clear vacant post. The petitioner at no material point of time claimed benefit of reservation. The petitioner was not appointed as against the reserved post. Twice the petitioner was promoted. Now in the year 2013 the communication is issued to the petitioner to get the caste claim validated and for that purpose the salary bills of the petitioner are withheld. The respondent No. 3 is not preparing the salary bills and sending it to the authorities.

¶19

Mr. Kadethankar, the learned counsel submits that, subsequently as per the directions issued by this Court, the

¶20

3 wp 1796.14

¶21

respondent No. 3 has prepared the salary bills and submitted to the concerned authority.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also does not dispute the fact that, the petitioner was not appointed as against the reserved seat and that the petitioner has not taken benefit of any reservation.

¶23

In view of the undisputed factual matrix that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 as against sanctioned vacant post and that too not from the reserved category, it would be improper on the part of the respondent No. 3 to ask for validity certificate.

¶24

It is also accepted by the authorities that the petitioner has been promoted twice and is being considered from the open category.

¶25

Even otherwise, it is too late in the day to ask for the validity certificate in the year 2013, when the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1996. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is in service till today.

¶26

In view of the fact that, the petitioner is appointed from the open category and is considered from the open category, the

¶27

4 wp 1796.14

¶28

impugned order/communication is quashed and set aside. The salary bills of the petitioner are already submitted by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 shall process the same and make payment of it to the petitioner expeditiously.

¶29

Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶30

Sd/Sd/[ A. M. BADAR, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶31

bsb/June 14

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule Vs Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

Yashwant Govinda Mahajan Vs the University Grants Commission and Anr.

Shaikh Baba Faijjoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhairyasheel Uttamrao Deore Vs the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon and Ors.

Maruti Nivrutti Karle Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others