The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing the respondents to reinstate a deputed employee. The Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the applicant's caste was valid as of the application date and quashed the cancellation order.
Writ Petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.1166/2017(18)
1
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2017
Vs.
Rakesh Kashinath Zugare Block No.206, 'B' Wing, Mital Society Near Chinar Hotel, Badlapur(East) Dist: Thane – 214 503. ...Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Rahul Walia, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :17TH APRIL, 2017
ORAL ORDER [PER SHRI M.S. KARNIK, J]
WP.1166/2017(18)
2
February, 2012 by which Respondent's candidature for selection to the post of Tradesmen Engine Fitter is cancelled. The Tribunal by the impugned order was pleased to allow the original application and quash and set aside the order dated 13th February, 2012 and
issued consequential directions. The Tribunal directed the Petitioners to finalize the selection/ appointment of the Respondent within two weeks from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Petitioners were further directed to make a fresh reference to the Caste Scrutiny and Validity Committee.
WP.1166/2017(18)
3
issued by the Petitioner No.2 for filling up 30 posts of Tradesmen Engine Fitter for OBC category, the Respondent being duly eligible submitted his application. On 7th/13th January, 2012 the Respondent was declared to have qualified in the test held and thereafter on 24th January, 2012 he was called for completion of prrecruitment formalities and for verification of his documents including the caste certificate. By letter dated 25th January, 2012 the Petitioner No.2 made a reference to the Caste Scrutiny and Validity Committee for validation of the caste certificate of the Respondent. The Petitioners without waiting for receipt of the caste validity certificate, issued the order dated 13th February 2012 cancelling the selection of the Respondent on the ground that the Government of Maharashtra vide G.R. dated 19th July, 2011 delisted / de-recognized his caste as OBC and hence according to the Petitioners he was not entitled for appointment against the reserved category for OBC.
st
WP.1166/2017(18)
4
March, 2014 the Respondent's caste was again included in the category of OBC. In view of the subsequent development a representation dated 6th March, 2014, was submitted by the Respondent to the Petitioner No.2 for giving appointment to him. As there was no response from the Petitioners the Respondent approached the Tribunal by filing the O.A.
5 WP.1166/2017(18)
caste was de-listed/de-recognized by the Government of
Maharashtra. According to the Petitioners subsequent inclusion of the said caste of OBC will not give rise for any cause of action to the Respondent.
advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The
WP.1166/2017(18)
6
advertisement is issued on 24th / 30th April, 2010 and on the last
date for submission of the application, the Respondent's caste was recognized by the State Government as OBC. It is only from 19 th July, 2011 that the said caste was de-listed / de-recognized. This was before the declaration of result of the examination on 7th /13th January, 2013. According to the Tribunal the G.R. dated 19 th July, 2011 will have prospective application only and it cannot be implemented or made applicable retrospectively, in the absence of specific clause to that effect. The Tribunal has referred to the G.R. dated 19th July, 2011 and has observed that the same was issued on the basis of the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2007, in which it was held that proper procedure was not followed by the state Government while including the caste 'Vaishya Vani' and 'Kulwant Vani' under the category of OBC. Subsequently on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1993 (SC) 477, the State Government established Backward Class Commission and on the basis of its recommendations which were accepted by the State Government, the above referred two castes were again included in OBC category
WP.1166/2017(18)
7
by the subsequent G.R. dated 1st March, 2014. It is in the light of
these circumstances that the Tribunal was of the view that for claiming the benefit of caste reservation, the crucial date is the last date for submitting the application form as per the advertisement and no other date and therefore, held that the de-listing / derecognizing of caste subsequently i.e. after 9th May, 2010 will not adversely affect the Respondent's claim. According to us the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
the Government of Maharashtra included the caste of the Respondent in OBC category and therefore, held that the OA is not barred by limitation. We do not see any reason to interfere with the
WP.1166/2017(18)
8
view so taken by the Tribunal.
see any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the Tribunal while allowing the OA filed by the Respondent.
of any merits and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the crucial date for OBC reservation is the last date for application submission.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order is devoid of merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No. 4335 of 2007Referred¶39
Indra Sawhney & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.Referred¶39
Indra Sawhney & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1993 (SC) 477 · Who else cites this
Union of India
Rakesh Kashinath Zugare
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
