Partly allowed

Shaikh Jaeed Shaikh Ajamatulla v. Divisional Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi., Nagpur Div. Commi. No. 2, Chandrapur Thr. Chairman, and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/781/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the locality of the petitioner's appointment (open vs. reserved category), the Court found insufficient proof for open category appointment. However, it directed the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim within a time frame and the management to protect the petitioner's services during proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim as early as possible; direction to management to protect the petitioner's services.

Shaikh Jaeed Shaikh Ajamatulla Vs Divisional Caste… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp781.17

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 781/2017

¶5

(SHAIKH JAEED SHAIKH AJAMATULLA VERSUS DIVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NAGPUR DIVISION, CHANDRAPUR & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri Anand Parchure a/w Shri Sachin Khandekar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri I.J. Damle, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri D.J. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.3.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 03, 2018.

¶9

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner is appointed on a post meant for the open category and not on a post reserved for the Vimukta Jatis.

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had claimed to belong to Chhapparband caste which falls in the Vimukta Jatis, his appointment was made on a post meant for open category. Certain documents are relied on by the petitioner in support of his claim. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought a direction against the scrutiny committee to decide his caste claim within a time frame.

¶11

Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Management state that the petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the Vimukta Jatis. Certain documents are placed by the concerned respondents along with their affidavits-in-reply to substantiate their submission that the appointment of the petitioner was not on a post meant for the

¶12

wp781.17

¶13

¶14

open category but was on a post meant for the Vimukta Jatis.

¶15

Shri Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that if this Court is of the view that the petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the Vimukta Jatis, the direction may be issued to the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a time frame and the services of the petitioner may be protected till his caste claim is decided.

¶16

Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the scrutiny committee states on instructions that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the scrutiny committee and the same could be decided as early as possible.

¶17

We are not inclined to hold that the petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the open category as it appears from the documents annexed to the affidavits-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis. However, since the petitioner is ready to get his caste claim verified, it would be necessary to issue a direction against the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a time frame. It would be necessary to protect the services of the petitioner till his caste claim is decided.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible. We direct the respondent-management to protect the services of the petitioner till his caste claim is decided. Order accordingly. No costs.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Gulande

Shaikh Jaeed Shaikh Ajamatulla v. Divisional Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi., Nagpur Div. Commi. No. 2, Chandrapur Thr. Chairman, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Jaeed Shaikh Ajamatulla v. Divisional Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi., Nagpur Div. Commi. No. 2, Chandrapur Thr. Chairman, 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

Parmeshwar S/O Kisan Pise Vs State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, Ps. Khamgaon and Another

Parasnath S/O Laxman Dubey Vs State of Mah. through Police Station, Durgapur and Others

Smt. Sunita W/O Girish Sonone Vs Girish Panjabrao Sonone

Raju Datta Pawar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali Vs the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises

Shri. Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and Others Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others