Allowed

Ram Limbaji Chapte v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2016WP/3825/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher with reserved seat challenged notice to show cause issued by Scrutiny Committee based on complaints against others. Court held absence of specific allegations against petitioner barred reopening and allowed petition quashing notice.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued by Scrutiny Committee on 15/17.2.2012 quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Ram Limbaji Chapte Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp3825.12.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3825 OF 2012

¶5

Ram s/o Limbaji Chapte age 31 years, occ. Service as Asst. Teacher, Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Shahu Chowk, Meghraj nagar, Latur Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

Scheduled Tribe Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad through its Deputy director / Vice chairman

¶9

Sanjaykumar Ekurgekar age major, occ. Nil Abhiyan Pramukh Bhrastachar nirmulan Abhiyan Sangharsh Nagar, Behind Raj Restaurant Nanded Road, Somnathpur, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S.B. Gastgar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State. Mr. G.D. Kale, advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶13

A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 12^th JANUARY, 2016.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶17

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶18

wp3825.12.doc

¶19

¶20

Petitioner claims to be belonging to Mahadev Koli Scheduled tribe and has been appointed as against the reserved vacancy as Assistant Teacher in Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Latur. Tribe certificate issued in favour of petitioner was referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, and, on consideration of the evidence placed on record by the petitioner as well as on receipt of Vigilance Cell report, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to direct validation of the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner.

¶21

Respondent no. 3 who claims to be the representative of one Bhrastachar Nirmulan Abhiyan, has presented a complaint on 05.09.2009 making allegations in respect of securing fabricated validation certificate against six individuals. On receipt of the complaint, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to issue notice to petitioner calling upon his explanation and asking him to show cause as to why the proceeding shall not be re-opened. Notice has been issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 17.02.2012.

¶22

Petitioner contends that no allegations of fraud or mis-representation allegedly committed by petitioner while securing validation certificate are made in the application tendered by respondent to the Committee. In the absence of specific allegations in respect of fraud or mis-representation, it is not open for the Scrutiny Committee to re-open the matter and conduct fresh investigation.

¶23

wp3825.12.doc

¶24

¶25

On perusal of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 3, it appears that there are bald allegations made against six to seven individuals who are in receipt of validation certificate. So far as petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no allegations contained in the complaint in respect of alleged commission of fraud or mis-representation by him. The complaint tendered by respondent appears to have been presented with oblique motive and the committee ought not to have taken cognizance of such complaint.

¶26

For the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Notice issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 15/17.2.2012 annexed at Exh. D to the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

¶27

( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

dyb

Ram Limbaji Chapte v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Limbaji Chapte v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Khushal Murlidhar Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Vitthalrao Mundhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dilip Dadasaheb Randhve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chatrapati Shri. Shahu Technical Institute and College Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Anil Vinayakrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.