Remanded

Pramod Prakash Salunke v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2015WP/9514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Writ Petition no. 9514 of 2013 concerns a caste scrutiny issue. The court, noting a discrepancy between committee reports and a Vigilance report favouring the petitioner, quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the respondent for reconsideration within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.07.2013 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration.

Pramod Prakash Salunke Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

9-wp-9514-13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9514 OF 2013

¶6

Pramod Prakash Salunke .... Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and ors. .... Respondents

¶7

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Mrs.Helen Koli Mandlik for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Rakesh Singh I/by M. V. Kini & Co. for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : September 21, 2015

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

¶13

parties.

¶14

2 After perusal of the record of Caste Scrutiny Committee

¶15

which is placed on record by the learned AGP and even after considering the submission so made and the observation so

¶16

1/4

¶17

dgm 2 9-wp-9514-13.sxw

¶18

recorded, that the report of the Vigilance Committee is in favour of the Petitioner, it appears that there is no tampering of record. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has passed the order, whereby two members of the Committee were against the Petitioner and one member was in favour of the Petitioner. This, in our view, requires reconsideration as the caste issue needs to be adjudicated based upon the reports also which in the present case is in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 11.07.2013, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back for reconsideration based upon the available material on record including the report of the Vigilance Committee. The same should be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within four months.

¶19

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, based upon the affidavit and the documents conceded to the position that if the Petitioner placed on record and/or produced caste validity certificate, the Petitioner will be reappointed on regular basis and or on probation. This, in our view, is sufficient even to re-consider the case of the Petitioner on regular basis/on probation.

2/4

dgm 3

9-wp-9514-13.sxw

4 Therefore, the following order :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) Impugned order dated 11.07.2013 is quashed

¶26

and set aside.

¶27

(ii) The matter is remanded back for

¶28

reconsideration based upon the available material record including the report of the Vigilance Committee, to Respondent No.2, to be decided in accordance with law, as early as, possible preferably within four months.

¶29

(iii) The management to re-consider the case of the Petitioner in view of the observation already made as above.

¶30

(iv) Rule is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

(v) No costs.

¶32

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

3/4

dgm 4

9-wp-9514-13.sxw

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgement/Order.

¶38

4/4

Pramod Prakash Salunke v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Prakash Salunke v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

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

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation through Its Managing Director and Ors. Vs Shri. Pritam Ramchandra Patil and Anr.

Shri. Jamshed Akram Naik Vs Division Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, and Anr.

Shaan Education Society'S Guardian College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Dept. and Ors.

Hindi Prachar Mandal, through Chairman / Secretary, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Anr. Vs the Joint Director (Vocational Education) and Ors.

Bhausaheb Dattatraya Holkar Vs Rajendra Jagtap and Anr.

Dattatray Namdeo Nimbalkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.