Disposed

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Jan 2018WP/383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner faced termination threat for not submitting a validity certificate for tribe claim despite being in reserve category. High Court directed committee to decide validation within nine months, quashed impugned notice, and stayed adverse action pending committee judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice quashed; respondent committee directed to decide validation within nine months; adverse action stayed pending committee judgment.

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.383/2018

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2018

¶5

Vikas Govinidrao Bodamwad

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr A.V. Patil (Indrale), Advocate for petitioner Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondents

¶11

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

¶12

DATE : 11^th January 2018

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

Notice to respondents. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for all the respondents.

¶15

Mr Patil, learned Counsel submits that the proposal seeking validation of the tribe claim of the petitioner is referred to the Committee on 3.12.2016. The same is still pending. However, the employer has issued notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to produce validity certificate or else the petitioner would be terminated.

¶16

The learned A.G.P. submits that if the petitioner is appointed from the reserve category, the petitioner is duty bound to submit the validity certificate within one year.

¶17

To get the proceedings decided within the stipulated time is not in the hands of the litigant. Considering above, we pass the following order.

¶18

W.P.383/2018

¶19

¶20

The respondent no.2 – Committee shall decide the validation proceedings in respect of the tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously, within nine months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

¶21

The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 30^th January 2018.

¶22

The impugned notice is quashed and set aside.

¶23

The respondent no.3 shall not take adverse action against the petitioner only on the ground that validity certificate is not submitted by the petitioner.

¶24

The respondent no.3 can take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee.

¶25

Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶26

( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)

¶27

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶28

vvr

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Momin Batool Momin Mahboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Snehal Avinash Sonawane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gauri Rajiv Pupalwad Minor through Natural Guardian Rajiv Atmaram Pupalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratiksha Pochanna Kamtalwar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vidya Bharat Sukare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narsing Ashenna Yengantwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others