Allowed

Nirmala Uttamrao Totewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2016WP/6947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's caste validation claim within one year and ordered provisional regularization of her services subject to post availability and submission of the caste certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Scrutiny Committee to decide caste validation claim within one year; direction to Zilla Parishad to provisionally regularize petitioner's services subject to post availability and caste v

Nirmala Uttamrao Totewad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

939wp6947-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6947 OF 2016

¶4

Nirmala d/o Uttamrao Totewad
Age 24 years, Occu: Service (As
Gram Sevak) R/o Panchayat
Samiti, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶7

2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Through its Deputy director (Research), Aurangabad.

¶8

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶9

4. The Deputy Chief Executive ... Respondents. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶10

Mr. Arun H. Koralkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M. B. Bharaswadkar, AGP for the respondents State.
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents 3 & 4.

¶11

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

¶12

 DATE:4th August, 2016

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶16

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

¶17

1/3

¶18

petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage.

¶19

3. The petitioner came to be appointed as Gramsevak
with respondent No.4 - Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Since
the petitioner was appointed against reserved category,
she was directed to submit caste validation proposal
within prescribed period. The petitioner contends that,
the proposal tendered by the employer for verification
of the tribe certificate is pending consideration with
the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and the proposal
has not yet been finally decided. In the facts of the
case, this petition can be disposed of by directing the
respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee to take decision in
respect of caste validation claim of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of one year from today and it is accordingly directed.

¶20

4. The petitioner contends that, in view of clause 10
of the appointment order, on completion of three years
of continuous service, the services of the petitioner
are liable to be regularised subject to availability of
the post. The petitioner submits that the posts are
available and since she has completed three years
service, her services are liable to be regularised

¶21

2/3

¶22

939wp6947-16.odt

¶23

provisionally subject to submission of the caste
validation certificate.

¶24

5. In the facts of the case, the respondent No.3
is directed to provisionally regularise the services of
the petitioner subject to furnishing the caste
validation certificate on declaration of the decision
of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and subject to
availability of the post.

¶25

6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of
the directions issued as above. There shall be no order
as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

JPC

¶28

3/3

Nirmala Uttamrao Totewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Uttamrao Totewad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namdeo Ramchandra Kadu Vs Mandabai Revannath Gade and Others

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

Ashok Abadeo Thote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohini Ramchandra Kamble Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad and Others

Sayed Bashir Ali Sayed Ali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kerabai Laxman Herke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others