Allowed

Deepali Ashok Sapkale v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Its Member Secretary and Others

Bombay HC3 May 2017WP/4399/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, disposed of a writ petition filed by a Supervisor facing termination due to a pending Scheduled Tribe certificate validation. The Court quashed the termination order, reinstated the petitioner, and directed the Committee to decide the certification proposal within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of termination set aside, petitioner reinstated, and Committee directed to decide pending proposal within eight months.

Deepali Ashok Sapkale Vs Scheduled Tribe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp4399.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4399 OF 2017

¶5

DEEPALI ASHOK SAPKALE VERSUS

¶6

SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICAT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE NANDURBAR THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRE

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Phatale Sagar S
AGP for Respondents:

¶9

.....

¶10

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

¶11

DATED: 3rd May, 2017

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties the petition is taken up for
final hearing at the admission stage.

¶15

2.The petitioner is appointed as a

¶16

Supervisor in Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon as against
the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe

¶17

category. The tribe certificate validation
proposal of the petitioner is pending for
consideration before the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar and no decision as yet has

¶18

2wp4399.17

¶19

been arrived at. In the mean while, the employer
has directed termination of service of the
petitioner by order dated 7.3.2017 on account of
her failure to produce validation certificate. It

¶20

is not within the reach of the petitioner to
secure validation certificate within stipulated
time frame, and as such, the action of termination
taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Jalgaon on 7.3.2017 deserves to be set
aside.

¶21

3.The order, passed by the Chief Executive

¶22

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon on 7.3.2017
directing termination of services shall stand
quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be
reinstated in employment forthwith.

¶23

4.Respondent no.1 Committee is directed to
take decision on the tribe certificate validation
proposal of the petitioner pending with the
Committee,asexpeditiouslyaspossible,
preferably within a period of eight months from

¶24

3wp4399.17

¶25

today and it is directed accordingly. The
petitioner undertakes to cooperate the Committee
in final disposal of the validation claim. The
employer shall have liberty to take appropriate
steps depending upon the outcome of the tribe
certificate validation proposal pending with
respondent no.1.

¶26

5.Rule is made absolute accordingly. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

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

¶29

dbm/wp4399.17

Deepali Ashok Sapkale v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Its Member Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepali Ashok Sapkale v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Its Member Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantilal Pandharinath Bhukan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Nivrutti Talekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rohit Sainath Mupde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Having Its Administrative Officer Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Wangi Village Panchayat through Its Sarpanch Ratanbai Balasaheb Rohokle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kawle Roadlines through Its Proprietor Apparao Khandojirao Kawle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others