Allowed

Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/2911/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition 2911/15, the petitioner challenged his reservation status while employed by a state educational institution. The High Court held that the proposal filed by the institution seeking approval for his appointment in the ST category should be examined on merits and not rejected solely due to pending internal validation proceedings. The court directed the Divisional Social Welfare Offic

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur Division, to process the proposal for the petitioner's appointment in the ST category and take a decision expeditiously within three months. Petitioner to

Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 2911/15

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2911/2015

¶5

Uddhav s/o Rangnath Suryawanshi,
age 41 yrs., occu.service,

¶6

c/o Shivaj s/o Ramrao Kotsulwar,
Basweshwar Galli, Hadolthi.
Tq.Ahmedpur Dist.Latur.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra , through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralya, Mumbai.

¶10

2] The Commissioner, Disabled Welfare Department, Pune. Charch Gate, Pune-1.

¶11

3] The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur Division, Latur.

¶12

4] District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶13

5] Krantijyot Mahila Mandal, Jalkot. Tq.Jalkot Dist.Latur. Through its President.

¶14

6] Sant Gadge Baba, Residential Ear Deaf School, Hadolti Tq.Jalkot Dist.Latur. Through its Head Master.

¶15

...Respondents...

¶16

 .....

¶17

Shri R.I. Wakade, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.R.P. Gour, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
None present for respondent no.4 though served.
Shri J.M. Murkute, Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶18

 .....

¶19

WP 2911/15

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶22

DATE: 15.12.2016

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

¶24

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule

¶25

made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing at this stage.

¶26

2]Mr.Wakade, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year

¶28

2003 in fact from open category. Other candidate was
appointed from the reserved category. According to the

¶29

learned counsel, even approval is granted to the
petitioner in the year 2007 wherein it is nowhere shown

¶30

that the petitioner is occupying the post meant for

¶31

reserved category;. The approval has been granted to the
petitioner upto 2013, however, subsequently the proposal

¶32

has not been forwarded by the institution. The learned
counsel submits that the institution is now contending

¶33

that the petitioner is appointed from ST category.
Though the petitioner belongs to ST category, still his
appointment is from the open category. The learned

¶34

- 3 -

¶35

counsel submits that at the relevant time in the year
2003, the reservation applicable was 34%. The Roster
will have to be considered from that point of view.
However, the Roster as approved by the BC Cell in the
year 2014 is considering the reservation to the extent of
50%.

¶36

3]Mr.Murkute, learned counsel for the institution

¶37

submits that the petitioner is appointed from the
reserved category. Even his application filed in the
year 2005 states that the petitioner had applied from ST

¶38

category. Even the petitioner has moved the scrutiny
committee for validation of his tribe claim. The said
documents are filed on record. The learned counsel

¶39

submits that the Roster is approved by the BC Cell and as
per the approved Roster also, the petitioner is shown as
against the reserved category. The learned counsel

¶40

further submits that the institution has already
forwarded the proposal to the respondent – authority
seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner

¶41

from ST category and the same is pending with the
authority.

¶42

4]We have heard the learned AGP also.

¶43

WP 2911/15

¶44

- 4 -

¶45

5]The fact that the petitioner is serving with the
respondent – institution is not disputed. It is also not
disputed that upto the year 2013, the appointment of the
petitioner is approved. Subsequent proposal was not
submitted. It is also the fact that the validation

¶46

proceedings in respect of the tribe claim of the
petitioner are pending consideration with the committee.
The petitioner has already approached the scrutiny
committee in that regard. The said proceedings are not
yet decided. The Roster is approved by the BC Cell. In

¶47

the said approved Roster, the petitioner is shown
occupying the post meant for ST category candidate.

¶48

6]The petitioner may approach the BC Cell with regard
to his grievance that at the relevant time when the
petitioner was appointed, the post was meant for open
category.

¶49

7]The respondent – institution has already forwarded

¶50

the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner from ST category to the respondent no.4. The
respondent no.4 shall process the said proposal and take
decision on it expeditiously and preferably within three
months. He shall not reject the proposal only on the

¶51

WP 2911/15

¶52

ground that the validation proceedings are pending. Of
course, the parties can take further steps pursuant to
the judgment of the committee in the validation
proceedings so also if the petitioner approaches the BC
Cell and some further orders are passed by the BC Cell in
tune with the same.

¶53

8]Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶54

ndk/ c1512166.doc

Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uddhav Rangnath Suryawanshi v. 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

Ramesh Asaram Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahendra Kanhaiyalal Jain Vs the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon and Others

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar Vs the Union of India and Others

Kevalchand Ramchand Choudhari Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Javedkhan Mustafa Pathan and Others Vs Sanjaykumar Rathod

Baban Bajirao Khillari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others