Disposed

Sanjay Kisansingh Raghuwanshi v. the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Amravati, through Its Secretary and Other

Bombay HC5 Jul 2016WP/6236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that under the Full Bench judgment in Arun Sonone, the petitioner is entitled to protection of his employment since his caste certificate was issued during minority and no fraud was recorded. The petition was disposed of conditional upon an undertaking. The case does not decide any general principle of law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file undertaking within six weeks not to claim Rajput Bhamta status; service protected subject to undertaking.

Sanjay Kisansingh Raghuwanshi Vs the Divisional Caste… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

Order

0507wp6236.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6236/2015.

¶6

Sanjay Kisansingh Raghuwanshi

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Amravati and others.

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶11

DATE : JULY 05, 2016.

¶12

Heard Ms. R.D. Raskar, learned Counsel

¶13

for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 4. None appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3, though served.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as Committee has not recorded any finding of fraud or manipulation, petitioner who got certificate showing

¶15

that he is Rajput Bhamta by caste, needs to be protected. She points out that said certificate came to be issued when the petitioner was minor.

¶16

Learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to

Order

0507wp6236.15

order dated 13.10.2015 delivered by the respondent no.1 Committee. He contends that as the petitioner himself accepted that he does not belong to Rajput Bhamta (VJ-A), his claim was not required to be verified further, and thus the petitioner has avoided any adverse finding.

¶21

After delivery of judgment in case of Arun Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457) , the legal position is very clear. The Scrutiny Committee has to record a finding about bonafides or otherwise of the claimant before it. The order passed by the committee is after the delivery of said judgment by the Full Bench, therefore, though the petitioner does not press his caste claim, Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered the material on record and pointed out fraud or manipulation, if any, on his part.

¶22

Date of birth of petitioner is 03.05.1965, and caste certificate is issued to him on 27.03.1981 i.e. before he attained majority. In this situation, we

¶23

find petitioner entitled to protection of his employment as per the judgment of Full Bench (supra).

Order

0507wp6236.15

Accordingly, subject to petitioner filing an undertaking within a period of six weeks with the Registry of this Court, with his employer as also with respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee that neither he nor his progeny shall claim status as a person belonging to Rajput Bhamta (VJ-A), his service shall remain protected in terms of the Full Bench judgment (supra).

¶28

In view of this, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

Rgd.

Sanjay Kisansingh Raghuwanshi v. the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Amravati, through Its Secretary and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kisansingh Raghuwanshi v. the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Amravati, through Its Secretary and Other

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

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs State of Maha. through Urban Development Dept. through Secretary Mumbai and 4 Others

Pracheta J. Ladhake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge and Otehrs Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department and Others

Pramod S/O Pratapsing Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Buldhana and Another

Kothari English Prathamik School, Nandura through Its Principal/Head Master, Aniruddha B. Avachar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of School, Education and Sport and Other

Ku. Monali D/O. Rajesh Gadpade Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Comm., Gadchiroli, Nagpur, through Its Chairman and Others