Allowed

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2019WP/9869/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed a non-communicated order of the Scrutiny Committee regarding caste certificate verification and directed fresh scrutiny under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2001.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee; remanded the matter for fresh scrutiny and verification.

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

914.WP-9869-15.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9869 OF 2015

¶4

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. … Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr.Sushant C. Yeramwar for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr.B.V.Samant, AGP for State.

¶7

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.

¶8

DATE :- NOVEMBER 21, 2019

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The petitioner in this petition has challenged an order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘A’ to the petition. That is a common order passed on 8^th December, 2009, but challenged in this petition filed on 26^th August, 2015. The averments are that such an order, though made, has in fact not been communicated in time. The Committee has no proof that it has been promptly and immediately communicated to the petitioners.

¶11

In the circumstances and when the petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit in this petition seeking to bring on record materials, which have escaped the attention of the

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶14

914.WP-9869-15.doc

¶15

Scrutiny Committee, we quash and set aside the impugned order without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions. The learned AGP has no-objection to this course. He has also noobjection to the matter being sent back to the Committee for fresh scrutiny and verification strictly in accordance with the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶16

As far as the first petitioner is concerned, if she is still in service of the Primary School of Sindhudurga Zilla Parishad as a teacher, then, let her services not be disturbed and she should not be terminated only because she has failed to produce the caste validity certificate. This protection will continue till the Committee passes its final order.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

¶18

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

M.M.Salgaonkar

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Its 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalachan Kapri Vs Mumbai District Football Associates

Advy Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ravi Goenka Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Prashant Annanji Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mahendra Narayan Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Sarodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through a.S.Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar Maharashtra State and Ors.