Writ petition partly allowed. Petitioner given service protection based on Full Bench judgment and 1995 Govt Resolution but prohibited from claiming Scheduled Tribe status.
Petitioner entitled to service protection; respondent not to take coercive action. Petitioner must submit undertaking not to claim ST status.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 1 ) wp2252.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2002
Radheshyam Narsayya Shadmallu
..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents
Mr. A.B.Chalak h/f.Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. A.B. Tele, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
A.M. BADAR,JJ.
DATED :29.06.2015
P.C. :-
1.Heard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
states that the petitioner is no longer interested in
pressing this petition for getting a declaration that he
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner requested
this Court to protect his service as per Government
Resolutions of 1995 and 2004.
2.We examined the facts of the case and found that
the petitioner's case to be belonging to a Scheduled
Tribe came to be rejected for want of evidence. However,
it is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner
did not place reliance on forged documents. We,
therefore, agree with learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner would be entitled to continuation in
service in terms of judgment of full Bench in the case of
Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.457 and in view of Government
Resolution dated 15.06.1995.
3.In view of this, the petition is partly allowed.
The respondent shall not take any coercive action against
the petitioner as far as his service is concerned. The
petitioner shall submit an undertaking stating that he
shall not make any claim to be belonging to a Scheduled
Tribe and shall not take any benefit on such claim.
4.Rule made partly absolute. The writ petition is
accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
snk/2015/JUN15/wp2252.02
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner entitled to service continuation can claim Scheduled Tribe status after representation against forged document relyiance is rejected.
Whether Government Resolutions of 1995 and 2004 protect the petitioner's service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.Applied¶13
Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.457 · Who else cites this
Radheshyam Narsayya Shadmallu
The State of Maharashtra
A.V. NIRGUDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court