Allowed

Kundlik S/O Manikrao Tarole v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Amravati through Its Chairman and Anothers

Bombay HC22 Apr 2015WP/3977/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court protected petitioner assistant teacher's services after Scheduled Tribe caste claim invalidation, relying on Full Bench precedent where no document fabrication was established despite caste discrepancy, conditional on future non-claim of benefits.

What did the court decide?

Services protected subject to undertaking not to claim Mahadeo Koli Tribe benefits in future and no promotional benefits from tribe claim.

Kundlik S/O Manikrao Tarole Vs Scheduled… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

22042015wpno.3977.2014 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3977 of 2014

¶4

Kundlik s/o Manikrao Tarole vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Amravati and another.

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s Orders.

¶7

Shri M.V.Bute, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sadavarte, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Ms M.P.Munshi, Adv. for the respondent no.2.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M.BADAR, JJ

¶9

DATE : 22.4.2015

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner seeks protection of his services in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015(1) Mh. L.J., 457 (Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others).

¶11

The petitioner was appointed on 30.6.1995 as an assistant teacher in a School administered by the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was appointed on the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe as the petitioner claimed to belong to “Mahadeo Koli” Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 1998. When the Zilla Parishad became aware about the invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner, it issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated. Since, the petitioner apprehended the termination of his services, the instant petition was

¶12

22042015wpno.3977.2014 2

¶13

filed challenging the show cause notice. The petitioner has sought the protection to his services in view of the Judgment in the case of Dattu Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 549 and the Judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015(1) Mh. L.J., 457 (Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others).

¶14

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 is liable to protect the services of the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 i.e. before the cut off date and the Scrutiny Committee has not found that the petitioner has fabricated documents and has claimed certain concessions meant for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of manipulated documents. It is stated that merely because in the documents pertaining to the father of the petitioner, caste “Koli” was recorded in the caste column, it cannot be said that the petitioner had made a false claim of belonging to “Mahadeo Koli” Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the observation in regard to the manipulation and fabrication in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, is wrong as the petitioner had never tried to change any entry in the documents pertaining to the petitioner or his relatives

¶15

Shri Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee submitted that though there is a observation in regard to the manipulation and fabrication of the documents by the petitioner, there is actually no material in respect of manipulation or fabrication and while using those terms the Scrutiny Committee has only considered the entry “Koli” in the School Record of the petitioner’s father. It is fairly admitted that there is nothing in the order to show that the petitioner had tried to create some

¶16

22042015wpno.3977.2014 3

¶17

documents with a view to seek the benefits meant for “Koli Mahadeo” Scheduled Tribe.

¶18

Ms. Munshi, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the petitioner is still working with the respondent no.2 Zilla Parishad despite the invalidation of his caste claim. The learned counsel had nothing to say about the protection of services of the petitioner as this issue stands answered in favour of the petitioner in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015(1) Mh. L.J., 457.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the services of the petitioner as an assistant teacher are required to be protected. The petitioner is appointed before the cut off date in the year 1995. Though the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, there is nothing in the order of the Scrutiny Committee to show that the petitioner had fabricated any documents or had interpolated some entries in the School Record of the petitioner or his father. The mere reference to the word “Koli” in the School Record of the father of the petitioner would not show that the petitioner had falsely tried to claim the benefits meant for “Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The issue involved in this case is squarely answered in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2015(1) Mh. L.J., 457.

¶20

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The services of the petitioner are protected only on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking in this court and before the respondent Zilla Parishad within a period of 15 days that neither the

¶21

22042015wpno.3977.2014 4

¶22

petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for “Mahadeo Koli” Scheduled Tribe in future. It is needless to state that the petitioner would not be entitled to any promotional benefits on the basis of the tribe claim. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

patle

Kundlik S/O Manikrao Tarole v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Amravati through Its Chairman and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundlik S/O Manikrao Tarole v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Amravati through Its Chairman and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe Vs the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Komalsingh S/O Kondusingh Parihar Vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai and 1

Sou. Sunita Sunil Gujar (Ku. Sunita Vitthalrao Pakhale) Vs Shri R.S. Walvi, (Joint Commissioner / Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee)

Deepak H. Sakhare (the Then Assistant (Personnel)) Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd., Nagpur Vs the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Others

Ratnapal S/O Bhaskar Satdeve and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,Mumbai and Other

Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Thokalwar Vs Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Maddikunta and Another