Allowed

Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Another

Bombay HC3 Aug 2016WP/5882/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking provisional appointment for a Selected Tribe candidate pending caste certificate validation. Court directed the scrutiny committee to decide within one year and the employer to issue a provisional appointment order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be issued a provisional appointment order within eight weeks; Scrutiny Committee directed to decide validation within one year.

Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar Vs Scheduled Tribe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 5882.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5882 OF 2016

¶5

Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar, age: 35 years, occu: Selectee R/o Krushnur, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through Its Member Secretary

¶8

2 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai Head Office, Udyog Sarthi, Mahakali Gupha Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 93 through Its Administrative Officer Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.S. Phatale advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Dande Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ

¶11

(Date : 3rd August, 2016.)

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶14

1 Heard.

¶15

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.

¶16

{2} wp 5882.16.odt

¶17

3 The petitioner claims to belong to Mannerwarlu, Scheduled Tribe and is in receipt of certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer certifying accordingly. The petitioner has been selected for appointment to the post of a driver in MIDC, as against a seat reserved for ST category in the year 2015. However, since the petitioner is not in a position to tender validation certificate, on account of pendency of the proposal with the scrutiny committee, the employer has not issued appointment order. One of the conditions contained in the order of selection mandates a selected candidate to submit validation certificate within a period of eight days. On production of such certificate, the employer has assured to issue appointment order.

¶18

4 Imposition of such precondition is violative of the Policy of the Government recorded in the resolution dated 12.12.2011. The petitioner ought to have been issued the letter of appointment by the respondent employer appointing him, subject to production of the validation certificate.

¶19

5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition stands disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 scrutiny committee to take decision on the caste validation proposal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

¶20

{3} wp 5882.16.odt

¶21

period of one year from today. Respondent No.2 employer shall issue provisional appointment order for the post, for which the petitioner is selected, subject to decision in respect of tribe certificate validation proposal pending with respondent No.1 committee. In the event of failure of the petitioner to substantiate his claim before respondent No.1 committee, it would be open for the employer to withdraw the appointment. The employer shall issue letter of appointment as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶22

6 Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶23

7 No costs.

¶24

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶25

vbd

Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Venkatrao Rautwar v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Another

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 Rajendra Kishor Patil Vs the Collector Osmanabad and Others

Balaji Baliram Bande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yuva Manch Bahuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha Amalner Dist Jalgaon Th Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdeo Ramchandra Kadu Vs Mandabai Revannath Gade and Others

Ashok Abadeo Thote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadev Narsing Bhange and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others