Allowed

Vilas Trimbak Raut v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC2 Jul 2021WP/7218/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order declined to place petitioners on supernumerary posts despite invalidation of their tribe certificates. The court ruled that previous judgments granting employment protection remain final, quashing communications ordering such placement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications placing petitioners on supernumerary posts are quashed and set aside. Writ petitions disposed of.

Vilas Trimbak Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp 7217.2021+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

969 WRIT PETITION NO.7217 OF 2021

¶4

DADA BABU KOLI

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. K. N. Lokhande
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶9

970 WRIT PETITION NO.7218 OF 2021 VILAS TRIMBAK RAUT

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶13

971 WRIT PETITION NO.7219 OF 2021 RAJARAM UTTRESHWAR RAUT

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶16

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. P. G. Borade
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶17

972 WRIT PETITION NO.7220 OF 2021
ANANT BHAGWAT KALE

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶20

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. P. G. Borade
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶21

2 wp 7217.2021+

¶22

973 WRIT PETITION NO.7221 OF 2021 BHIMA PANDURANG KHOT

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶25

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. P. S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶26

974 WRIT PETITION NO.7222 OF 2021
KERBA DASHRATH KOLI

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶29

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. D. S. Bagul

¶30

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶31

DATE:02nd JULY, 2021

¶32

PER COURT:

¶33

1.Mr. Jadhavar, learned Counsel for the

¶34

petitioners submits that in all these cases tribe
claims of the petitioners were invalidated. The
petitioners had filed writ petitions before this
Court. This Court confirmed the invalidation,

¶35

however, granted protection in service.

¶36

3 wp 7217.2021+

¶37

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶38

further submits that, now, the petitioners are
placed on supernumerary posts by respondent no. 2.

¶39

3.Mr. Bagul, learned Counsel appears for

¶40

respondent no. 2 and submits that as the tribe
certificates of the petitioners are invalidated
they are rightly placed on the supernumerary
posts; as per the policy of the State Government.

¶41

4.We have also heard the learned Additional /
Assistant Government Pleaders for the State.

¶42

5.The issue is no longer res-integra. This
Court under it’s Judgment and Order dated
04.05.2021 in Writ Petition No. 903 of 2020 with
connected writ petitions held that if the
protection has been granted by this Court, the
same has become final then it would not be open
for the respondent now to place the petitioners on
the supernumerary posts.

¶43

6.In light of the above and for the reasons

¶44

recorded in the Judgment and Order

¶45

4 wp 7217.2021+

¶46

dated 04.05.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 903
of 2020 with connected writ petitions, we follow
the same course.

¶47

7.In the light of above, the Government

¶48

Resolution dated 21.12.2019 shall be read in a
manner not to include the employees whose tribe
claims are invalidated, but are granted protection
in employment under the judgments/orders of this
Court and the said judgments/orders have attained
finality.

¶49

8.In view of the aforesaid, the impugned
communications placing the petitioners on
supernumerary posts are quashed and set aside.

¶50

9. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶51

No costs.

¶52

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶53

marathe

Vilas Trimbak Raut v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Trimbak Raut v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Ramchandra Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulab Sukhdev Nangurde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jarichand Mariba Takpire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanket Manik Bodhgire Thr Father and Natural Guardian Manik Datta Bodhgire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vedant Sanjay Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dada Babu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another