Allowed

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin v. District Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi. Buldhana Thr. Research Officer and Member-Secretary and Anothe

Bombay HC10 Apr 2017WP/487/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court protected the petitioner's services and directed reinstatement with backwages and pensionary benefits, finding that terminating a retiring Muslim Assistant Professor deemed eligible for SC benefits pending Supreme Court adjudication would frustrate the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's services protected; ordered reinstatement with backwages and pensionary benefits. Contempt petition disposed of as no order survives.

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin Vs District Caste Cert… — Caste Atrocities | 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

Needless to state that the petitioner shall be reinstated in

¶47

services forthwith. He shall be entitled to continue in service with all backwages including pensionary benefits etc.

¶48

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

¶49

costs.

¶50

In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.487 of

¶51

2017, nothing survives in Contempt Petition No.41 of 2017. Hence, the same is disposed of.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

jaiswal

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin v. District Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi. Buldhana Thr. Research Officer and Member-Secretary and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Syed Riyazuddin Syed Nizamuddin v. District Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi. Buldhana Thr. Research Officer and Member-Secretary and Anothe

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

Shri Parmanand S/O Jainarayan Jaiswal Vs Smt. v. Radha, the Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra State

Madan Gathalya Chavan. Vs Divisional Forest Officer,Charni and 3 Ors.

Sayyad Sadique S/O Sayyad Yasin Vs Shri Ibrahim Chaudhary, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati

Sanjay S/O Maroti Jadhav Vs State of Maha Thr the Secretary of Rural Development and Water Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

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

Shankar Tukaram Ugalmugle Vs Smt. Deepa S. Mudhol, Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Buldhana