Disposed

Shri. Ishwar Pralhad Sangale v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2017WP/4873/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging the invalidation of their Scheduled Tribe certificates prayed for continuation of service alleging Special Backward Class status. The court expressed no opinion on the substantive merits but directed the competent authority to examine their request for continuation as Special Backward Class independently, uninfluenced by the Scrutiny Committee order.

What did the court decide?

Extension of ad-interim order for two months; direction to competent authority to examine request for continuation as Special Backward Class independently.

Shri. Ishwar Pralhad Sangale Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

vikrant 1/4 3-WP-7591-2013+1.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7591 OF 2013

¶4

Sanjay Pralhad Sangale … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2013

¶7

Shri Ishwar S/o Pralhad Sangale … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner in WP/7591/2013. Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav for the Petitioner in WP/4873/2013.

¶9

Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WP/7591/2013 and for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, 13 & 14 in WP/4873/2013.

¶10

Mr. Rajendra Raghuwanshi a/w Mr. D. A. Nalawade i/b. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent No.3-UOI in WP/7591/2013.

¶11

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : MARCH 22, 2017.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The petitioners have stated before us that they do not wish to challenge the orders dated 12^th July, 2013 (Writ Petition No. 7591 of 2013) and 21^st February, 2013 (Writ Petition No. 4873 of 2013), passed by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee .

¶15

vikrant 2/4 3-WP-7591-2013+1.odt

¶16

The petitioners were appointed against a reserved seat and meant for Scheduled Tribe on the establishment of the 3^rd respondent in Writ Petition No.7591 of 2013 and the 7^th respondent in Writ Petition No. 4873 of 2013 respectively, in the year 2005. The posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners obtained certificates certifying them as belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe. Those certificates dated 13^th September 1993 and 2^nd July, 1992 respectively, on the strength of which the appointments were obtained, were forwarded for scrutiny and verification to the competent Scrutiny Committee. That has invalidated their claims. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held to be 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe.

¶17

Once the tribe certificates, and obtained in the above terms certifying the petitioners as 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe, are cancelled, then, the petitioners cannot be treated as Scheduled Tribe candidates. The finding of fact by the Committee is that the petitioners have miserably failed to establish and prove their claims towards this tribe. The alternate argument of Mr. Mendadkar is that the Committee holds that the petitioners belong to 'Koli'. As far as 'Koli' is concerned, that is a Special Backward Class recognized by the State of Maharashtra. Such of these persons (Kolis), who are in employment of the State prior to 15^th June, 1995, are therefore protected in terms of the Resolution of the State Government treating them as Special Backward Class. Mr. Mendadkar would submit that once the petitioners are held to be 'Koli' and which is recognized as Special Backward Class by the

¶18

vikrant 3/4 3-WP-7591-2013+1.odt

¶19

State Government by a Notification in the official Gazette, the petitioners' employment with the 3^rd respondent (Writ Petition No.7591 of 2013) and the 7^th respondent (Writ Petition No. 4873 of 2013) respectively, which is protected by an interim order passed by this Court should be protected and they should be allowed to work till they attain the age of superannuation. The petitioners undertake that they will not claim any benefit meant for 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe. They and their families, therefore, will not seek any benefit, concession or relaxation in terms of this tribe certificate hereafter. They have given up their claim and voluntarily. On such undertaking, the petitioners pray that their Services, which are protected from 21^st August, 2014 by this court, to be further protected. We do not have any pleading and which would enable us to hold that the petitioners can derive any benefit from any Notification of the State Government. The petitioners argued these petitions by pressing the grounds, namely, that they belong to 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe and the Scrutiny Committee was in error in invalidating their tribe certificate. Now that the Court is not inclined to quash and set aside the Scrutiny Committee's order, this alternate request and submission is canvassed for which there is no foundation in the pleadings.

¶20

In the circumstances, we express no opinion on that part of the controversy. We continue the ad-interim order dated 21^st August, 2013 for a period of two months within which the petitioners are free to make such request as is contemplated, and

¶21

vikrant 4/4 3-WP-7591-2013+1.odt

¶22

in writing, for continuation in services as 'Koli' Special Backward Class and not as a Scheduled Tribe. That request be independently examined by the competent authority and a decision be taken thereon uninfluenced by the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with these directions.

¶23

(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶24

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Shri. Ishwar Pralhad Sangale v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ishwar Pralhad Sangale v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

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

the commissioner of Sales Tax,Mum Vs M/s shri datta shetkari saahakari sakhar karkhana limited

commissionmer of sales tax,mum Vs m/s b. vijaykumar and Co.

m/s sunstar finance and leasing Ltd. Vs the commissioner of sals tax

Shankar Kondiba Gaikwad Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Shri. Dadaso Maruti Suryavanshi Vs Warnamai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kakhe, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Haribhau Malav Vs the Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.