Disposed

Vivek Kishanrao Chanmanwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Feb 2017WP/12621/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench upheld a committee judgment invalidating the petitioner's caste claim due to insufficient documentary evidence. Despite invalidation, the court granted service protection under a Full Bench decision but barred the petitioner from availing benefits of the certificate or facing adverse action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted service protection but not entitled to benefits of caste certificate; respondent barred from adverse action on caste invalidation.

Vivek Kishanrao Chanmanwar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WP 12621/16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12621 OF 2016

¶5

Vivek S/o Kishanrao ChanmanwarPetitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. N.S. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner Smt. V.H. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2017

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Caste claim of the petitioner has been
invalidated. According to the learned counsel, only

¶13

on the ground that the documents are not available,
the claim of the petitioner is invalidated. There is

¶14

no contra evidence on record. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner is appointed prior to 2001,
therefore, his services are necessary to be protected.

¶15

2 WP 12621/16

¶16

2.Learned A.G.P. submits that no documentary
evidence in respect of petitioner's father or brothers
was produced on record. Considering the same, the
evidence was insufficient to grant him validity
certificate.

¶17

3.Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent

¶18

No.3 submits that it is acceptable that the petitioner
is working as full-time teacher since 1988. His
services are also approved.

¶19

4.The Committee while invalidating caste claim
of the petitioner has observed that the petitioner
could not prove his caste as “Yelmalwandalu” scheduled

¶20

caste. The Vigilance Report is also considered.
Except the record of the petitioner and his brother,
no other evidence is available to substantiate the
contention of the petitioner. The evidence was too
short to grant validity to the petitioner.

¶21

5.However, it is not the observation of the
Committee that the petitioner has obtained the Caste

¶22

3 WP 12621/16

¶23

Certificate by fraud or misrepresentation. As such,
in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this

¶24

Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs.

¶25

State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1)

¶26

Mh.L.J. 457, the service of the petitioner can be
protected. In the light of above, we pass the
following order :-

¶27

 O R D E R

¶28

(A)The Judgment of the Committee thereby
invalidating the caste claim of the
petitioner is upheld.

¶29

(B)The respondent No.3 shall not take any
adverse action against the petitioner only on
the ground that his caste claim is
invalidated. However, the petitioner is
entitled for protection in service. The
petitioner shall not be entitled to take
benefit of said Caste Certificate in any walk
of life.

¶30

(C) The entry of this order be taken in the
service book of the petitioner.

¶31

4 WP 12621/16 (D) Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ( K.L. WADANE, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶32

SRM/27/2/17

Vivek Kishanrao Chanmanwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kishanrao Chanmanwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashra and Anr. Vs Havgirao Kareppa Shetkar

Pimpla Lokhande Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Thu Chairman R G Lokhande and or Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Rajesh Pawar Vs the Returning Officer and Others

Mangal Vinayak Kele Vs the Collector Dhule and Others

Laxmi Kishan Suryawad Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad through Its Member Secretary and Others

Dinkar Uttam Desale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others