Quashed

Shivkumar Vasantrao Gandapwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Oct 2015WP/10891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition questioned the termination of an ST employee's services due to delay in producing a Caste Validity Certificate caused by the verification committee's prolonged inaction. The High Court set aside the termination and directed reinstatement pending the committee's decision.

What did the court decide?

Termination order quashed; Petitioner directed to be continued in employment subject to verification decision; Committee directed to decide within one year.

Shivkumar Vasantrao Gandapwar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP No. 10891/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10891 OF 2015

¶5

Shivkumar s/o Vasantrao Gandapwar
Age:34 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Shivba Nagar, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.- PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2) The Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Amravati Divn. Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶9

3) The District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Amravati Dist. Amravati.

¶10

4) The Taluqa Agriculture Officer, Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati.

¶11

5) The Schedule Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, through its Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad. - RESPONDENTS

¶12

*****

¶13

Mr.Sunil M.Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner/s
Mr.DR Kale, AGP for Resp.Nos.1 to 4;
Mr. KD Bade-Patil, Adv. For Resp.No.5.

¶14

CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶15

DATE :29th October,2015.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-R.M.BORDE,J.)

¶17

2 WP No. 10891/2015

¶18

1)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶19

forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
the parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal at admission stage.

¶20

2)The petitioner claims to belong to
“Mannerwarlu” scheduled tribe (ST) category and has

¶21

been appointed on the post of Clerk in Agriculture
Department on 16.1.2014 as against a vacancy
prescribed for the aforesaid category. The
appointment order issued to the petitioner contains
stipulation that he shall have to produce Caste
Validity Certificate to the employer within a period
of six months from the date of appointment order.

¶22

3)The petitioner contends that tribe claim

¶23

proceeding for verification in respect of the
certificate issued to the petitioner was referred to
the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 1st April, 2013 and
the same is pending with the committee for disposal
and on enquiries by the petitioner, he has been
informed that the Committee may not be in a position
to dispose of the tribe claim of the petitioner
expeditiously.

¶24

3 WP No. 10891/2015

¶25

4)The employer, as a result failure on the

¶26

part of the petitioner to produce Caste Validity
Certificate, has directed termination of services of
the petitioner by order dated 23rd October,2015.

¶27

5)It is not within the control of the
petitioner to secure Caste Validity Certificate from
the Committee within stipulated period. The
Committee has also informed the employer of the
petitioner that it may consume some time in
processing the tribe claim of the petitioner. The
tribe claim verification proceedings pending before
the Committee may consume some time and for that the
petitioner cannot be put to blame or to any
disadvantage, as a result of failure of the Committee
to take a decision on the tribe claim verification
proceeding of the petitioner within stipulated
period. The employer of the petitioner ought to have
looked into the record before terminating the
services of the petitioner.

¶28

6)In the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the opinion that the termination order

¶29

4 WP No. 10891/2015

¶30

passed by the Respondent No.2 - employer, deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly
quashed and set aside and the respondent/employer is
directed to continue the petitioner in employment
subject to decision in respect of the tribe claim
verification proceeding pending before the Committee.

¶31

7)Respondent No.5 Committee is also directed
to take decision on the tribe claim verification
proposal of the petitioner pending before it, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a
period of one year from today and it is accordingly
directed.

¶32

8)Rule is accordingly made absolute in above
terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

sd/-sd/-
 (P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
 JUDGEJUDGE

¶34

bdv/

Shivkumar Vasantrao Gandapwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar Vasantrao Gandapwar 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

Qwality Agro Wet Industries through Its Authorized Signatory Sudhir Govind Kapote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shyamkant Dajmal Shrirao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jmk Info Tech, Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Durgesh Sanjay Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Varsha Bapu Thakur through Guardian Bapu Raghunath Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manoj Suresh Pingle Vs the President and Anothers