Allowed

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Dec 2016WP/12594/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tribe certificate holder selected for a post could not get appointment due to inability to furnish validation certificate. The Court directed the scrutiny committee to decide verification within one year and the employer to issue provisional appointment against an undertaking to submit the certificate within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No. 2 to decide verification within one year; respondent No. 3 to issue provisional appointment within six weeks subject to undertaking to submit validation certificate.

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 12594.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12594 OF 2016

¶5

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad, age: 27 years, ccu: nil R/o Mendka, Tq. Mudkhed Dist. Nanded Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶8

2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad through Its Deputy Director (R)

¶9

3 The Manager, Government Press & Book Depot, Nagpur Respondents

¶10

Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr.S.P. Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶13

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ

¶14

(Date : 21st December, 2016.)

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶17

1 Heard.

¶18

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

¶19

for final decision at admission stage.

¶20

{2} wp 12594.16.odt

¶21

3 The petitioner claims to belong to Mannervarlu Tribe and is in receipt of the tribe certificate issued by the Competent Authority. He has been selected for the post of Parichar Pratirup in Government Press & Depot. However, on account of his inability to furnish validation certificate, the order of appointment has not been issued by the employer i.e. respondent No.3. He is called upon by communication dated 2.12.2016 to tender the caste certificate along with supporting documents. The petitioner tendered necessary documents in support of his claim which have been forwarded by respondent No.3 to the scrutiny committee on 5.12.2016. The petitioner claims that, in view of the Policy of the State Government declared on 12.11.2011 as well as the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2136 of 2011 decided on 25.8.2011, the petitioner shall have to be issued provisional order of appointment, subject to submission of an undertaking by the petitioner to submit validation certificate within specified period. The respondent employer, overlooking the directions issued by the Government in that regard, referred to above, has refused to issue order of appointment. As such the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶22

4 In view of the facts stated as above, this petition can be disposed of by issuing direction to respondent No.2 to take

¶23

wp 12594.16.odt

¶24

decision on the tribe certificate verification proposal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today and it is accordingly directed. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 shall issue provisional order of appointment, subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the petitioner to the effect that he would submit validation certificate within a period of one year from today and in the event of his failure to submit validation certificate and in the event of rejection of his claim by the scrutiny committee, the order of appointment issued to the petitioner shall be liable to be withdrawn with retrospective effect. The respondent No.3 employer shall issue necessary orders of provisional appointment subject to tendering of an undertaking by the petitioner, as referred to above, within six weeks from today.

¶25

5 Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

¶26

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶27

vbd

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad 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

Divya Rajendra Ambure and Another Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manik Haribhau Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhavna Ajay Patil Vs Returning Officer for Election of Municipal Council Jalgaon and Another

Bhavna Ajay Patil Vs Returning Officer for Election of Municipal Council Jalgaon and Another

Sanjay Chhagan Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another