Disposed

Sharwan S/O Sadashiv Amagaonkar v. the District Collector, Collectorate Office, Nagpur and Other

Bombay HC9 Feb 2016WP/46/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his reversion from the post of Talathi due to non-submission of documents. The High Court observed that specific notices were issued to the petitioner to submit documents before the Scrutiny Committee, which he failed to comply with. Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the reversion but directed respondents to forward submitted documen

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Petitioner's claim to be decided by Scrutiny Committee if documents submitted.

Sharwan S/O Sadashiv Amagaonkar Vs the District… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

10.2WP.46.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2016. (Shrawan Sadashiv Amgaonkar .vs. The District Collector, Nagpur & others)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner,

¶7

Mr. D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶9

DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2016.

¶10

1] The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2015, thereby reverting the petitioner to the post of Talathi.

¶11

2] The petitioner's services are reverted on the ground that the petitioner has submitted neither the validity certificate nor necessary documents which could be forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for scrutinizing the claim of the petitioner.

¶12

3] Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had submitted his documents as way back as in the year 1994 and as such, there was no occasion for him to resubmit them.

¶13

4] The perusal of the affidavit-in-reply would clearly reveal that the petitioner was called upon as early as on

¶14

10.2WP.46.16

¶15

¶16

31.3.2012, 15.7.2013 and 20.9.2014 to submit the documents so that the same can be forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee and was also informed that on failure to do so, his services shall stand reverted. In spite of those specific communications, the petitioner has not replied to them. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner that he had submitted the documents appears to be a purely disputed question.

¶17

5] In any case, the petitioner has only been reverted and not terminated from service. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the reversion.

¶18

6] The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that now the petitioner has submitted all the documents. The respondents shall, therefore, forward the documents to the Scrutiny Committee which shall decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law. Needless to state that if the petitioner is successful and his claim is eventually validated, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall restore the position of the petitioner to which he is entitled on the basis of his status of belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

7] With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Judge

¶21

Judge

¶22

Sharwan S/O Sadashiv Amagaonkar v. the District Collector, Collectorate Office, Nagpur and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan S/O Sadashiv Amagaonkar v. the District Collector, Collectorate Office, Nagpur and Other

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

Rajesh S/O. Ratansingh Chavhan, Nagpur Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Krishnakumar Vithalrao Jamadar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Additional Collector, Akola and Others

Rushikesh S/O Satish Bakde Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman Scheduled Tribe Caste Cert Scrutiny Commt Irwin Chowk Amravati

Shankar S/O Nagorao Joshi, Since Deceased through Lrs, Smt. Sadhana Wd/O Shankar Joshi and Others Vs Alka Arun Rode and 2 Others

Nitin S/O. Devidas Janiyani, P.O.A. Smt. Simmi Wd/O. Rajesh Janiyani and Another Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Nagpur, through Its Branch Manager and Another

Vishal S/O. Laxman Janiyani, P.O.A. Smt. Simmi Wd/O. Rajesh Janiyani and Another Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Nagpur, through Its Branch Manager and Another