Allowed

Asha Ramlu Kamalawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Oct 2015WP/6683/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection from employer action while awaiting Scheduled Tribe certificate verification. Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to verify the claim within eight months and restrained the employer from taking adverse action during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Scrutiny Committee directed to verify tribe claim within eight months; employer restrained from adverse action pending verification.

Asha Ramlu Kamalawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

24 WRIT PETITION NO. 6683 OF 2014

¶3

ASHA RAMLU KAMALAWAR VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

...

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
Mr. SG Karlekar, AGP for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bade Patil K.D., Adv. For R/2.

¶7

...

¶8

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Dated: October 12, 2015

¶9

...

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

1)Heard. The petitioner, apprehending adverse
action by his employer on account of his failure to submit
caste validation certificate, has approached this Court,
seeking protection.

¶12

2)The petitioner claims to belonging to "Koli
Mahadev", scheduled tribe and the tribe certificate issued
in his favour is referred for its verification to the
competent Scrutiny Committee and the proposal in respect
thereof is still stated to have been pending before the
Scrutiny Committee.

¶13

3)In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition can be disposed of by directing Respondent No.2-
Committee to take a decision in respect of verification of
the tribe claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of eight months from
today and it is accordingly directed. During pendency and
disposal of the tribe claim for verification before the
Committee, the employer of the petitioner is directed not to
any adverse action against the petitioner.

¶14

4)The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
...

¶16

BDV

Asha Ramlu Kamalawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Ramlu Kamalawar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalinder Laxman Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Babaji Mule Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Seema Pankaj Nikam @ Seema Asaram Thorat Vs Pankaj Pralhadrao Nikam

Nababshah Shaukatshah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Snehal Ravindra Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others