Dismissed

Sandep Narayan Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2016WP/5072/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three writ petitions by the petitioners belonging to the Mahadev Koli tribe. Upholding a prior decision, the court directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue copies of submitted certificates for re-verification after the petitioners correct the caste description. No adverse action is to be taken in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to correct caste description and re-submit for verification; no adverse action permitted in interim.

Sandep Narayan Jadhav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP 4968-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4968 OF 2014

¶4

Anil Santosh More ...PETITIONER versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. Pramod B. Ganpat, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5071 OF 2014

¶8

Anil Bhimrao More ...PETITIONER versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Pramod B. Ganpat, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 3 Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 5072 OF 2014

¶12

Sandeep Narayan Jadhav ...PETITIONER versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. Pramod B. Ganpat, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for respondents No. 1,3 and 4 Mr. P.S. Patil and Mr. K.D. Bade Patil Advocates for responder No. 2

¶14

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 10^th OCTOBER, 2016.

¶16

Order :-

¶17

Heard.

¶18

2 WP 4968-14

¶19

Petitioners claim to be belonging to ‘Mahadev Koli', scheduled tribe and are in receipt of tribe certificates issued by the competent authority containing certification accordingly. Tribe certificates issued in favour of the petitioners were referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, however, Scrutiny Committee turned down the proposals on the ground that description of caste in the tribe certificates is incorrectly recorded as ‘Mahadev Koli’ and not as ‘Koli Mahadev’ and, petitioners have been given liberty to secure proper certificate and submit the same for verification once again.

¶20

The issue raised in the instant petitions is no more res-integra in view of decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4536/2014 and other companion petitions. In view of decision in aforesaid writ petitions, decision of the Scrutiny Committee is upheld. Petitioners undertake to co-operate the Scrutiny Committee in rendering decision within prescribed time frame. In the facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass following order:

¶21

a) Petitioners may approach the concerned Scrutiny Committee for issuance of photostat/true copy of the tribe certificates produced by them for verification, within a period of two months from today. The Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of such applications, issue true copy/certified copy of the tribe certificates produced by respective petitioners for verification to the committee, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such applications.

¶22

3 WP 4968-14

¶23

b) On receipt of photostat / certified copy of the tribe certificates, petitioners shall approach the Sub-Divisional Officer/Competent Authority, with an application for issuance of tribe certificates within a period of six weeks, thereafter.

¶24

c) On receipt of tribe certificates, petitioners shall tender the certificates with the proposals in the prescribed proforma to the Scrutiny Committee within a period of eight weeks and, the Scrutiny Committee shall proceed to determine the claim for verification of the tribe certificates in accordance with the provisions of law

¶25

and render decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the proposals.

¶26

d) In the meanwhile, no adverse action shall be taken against practitioners merely on the ground of failure to submit validation certificates, and it would be open for the employers/educational institute to take appropriate steps in the event of failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim and to secure validation certificates.

¶27

Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶31

MTK

Sandep Narayan Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandep Narayan Jadhav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yunus Babulal Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Loknete Amadar Kai M N Rajput @ Thansing Jibhau Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Other Thr Its Presiden Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Tulshiram Dudharam Jadhav Vs Sant Namdeo Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jambhrun Andh(Tanda) Thr Secretary and Others

Dattatraya Ramrao Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pragati Sainathrao Patodekar Vs the Dean Government Ayurved College Nanded and Others

Anil Bhimrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others