Allowed

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin v. Dr. Madhukar R. Pawar, Principal, Akola

Bombay HC10 Apr 2017CP/41/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Muslim Assistant Professor appointed to a Scheduled Caste post, had his services threatened with termination due to a refusal by the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste certificate as he was not Hindu. The High Court protected his services pending the resolution of the constitutional issue regarding Scheduled Caste status for Muslims.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's services protected from termination; order for reinstatement with backwages and pensionary benefits.

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin Vs Dr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp487.17.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 487 OF 2017 with CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 41 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2017

¶6

1) WRIT PETITION NO. 487 OF 2017 :

¶7

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Gajanan Colony, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. …....... PETITIONER

¶8

// VERSUS //

¶9

District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Social Justice Bhavan, Trisharan Chowk, Chikhali Road, Buldhana, through it's Research Officer and Member-Secretary.

¶10

The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts,

¶11

¶12

wp487.17.odt

¶13

Commerce and Science College, Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. …........

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Mr.S.R.Narnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶16

A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

¶17

Mr.R.D.Karode, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶18

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶19

¶20

2) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 41 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2017

¶21

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Gajanan Colony, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. …....... PETITIONER

¶22

// VERSUS //

¶23

Dr. Madhukar R. Pawar, Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts, Commerce and Science College, Barshitakali, Distt. Akola.

¶24

…........ RESPONDENTS

¶25

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Mr.S.R.Narnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶26

Mr.R.D.Karode, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶27

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶28

wp487.17.odt

¶29

¶30

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶31

DATE : 10.4.2017.

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J) :

¶33

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

¶35

the communication addressed by respondent no.2 thereby directing him to submit Validity Certificate of belonging to Scheduled Caste and informing him that, on non-submission of the same, his services shall stand terminated.

¶36

The petitioner belongs to caste 'Madari', which is notified as a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has been appointed as an Assistant Professor against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate. The petitioner has also been granted Caste Certificate certifying that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. However, respondent no.1/Committee has refused to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of Validity

¶37

wp487.17.odt

¶38

¶39

on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to 'Hindu' religion,

¶40

but belongs to 'Muslim' religion and as such, his claim cannot be considered.

¶41

4. Mr.S.R.Narnaware, learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶42

submits that the issue with regard to the question as to whether the persons professing the Muslim religion and the Christian religion are entitled to the benefits of Scheduled Caste are pending ad judication before the Apex Court and as such, the petitioner should be granted protection.

¶43

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, since respondent no.2/Management has no objection for continuation of the petitioner's services, we find that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner's services are protected. We are inclined to take this view since the petitioner is likely to retire in this year itself. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner's services shall stand protected and he shall not be terminated on the ground of nonsubmission of Validity Certificate.

¶44

wp487.17.odt

¶45

¶46