Allowed¶25

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre v. Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Dept. of Telecommunication, Thr. Secy. (T) and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2025WP/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Junior Wireless Officer; Department of Telecommunications; caste certificate verification; Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate; physically handicapped category appointment; office memorandum dated 08.12.2023 quashed; undertaking not to claim ST/reserved category benefits; District Magistrate, Nagpur; confirmation/promotion benefits; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:6475-DB; file 35-wp-63-24(j).odt.

What did the court decide?

Office memorandum dated 8th December, 2023 quashed and set aside; petitioner to be treated as a handicapped open category candidate for all purposes in her service career; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶25

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre Vs Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Dept. of Telecommunication, Thr. Secy. (T) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the office memorandum dated 8th December, 2023 issued by respondent no.1 requiring the petitioner — who was appointed from the Physically Handicapped category and not from any reserved category — to produce/verify a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the petitioner's statement that she was appointed in the handicapped open category and will not claim any benefit of the Scheduled Tribe Category in her service career, the petition is allowed and the office memorandum dated 8th December, 2023 is quashed and set aside.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the petitioner will be treated as a candidate from the handicapped open category for all purposes in her service career in the respondent department and will not be entitled to claim the benefit of the reserved category (recorded in the judgment as 'Schedule Caste Category').

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Writ Petition No. 63 of 2024 (decided 7th July, 2025; Coram: Smt. M.S. Jawalkar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; oral judgment by Pravin S. Patil, J.). The petitioner, appointed as Junior Wireless Officer in the Department of Telecommunications from the Physically Handicapped Category (Disability Certificate dated 10.12.2015), challenged an office memorandum dated 08.12.2023 directing her to produce/verify a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate. The respondents' affidavit dated 15.03.2024 stated the verification was sought only because 'ST' status entails benefits in promotion before confirmation, and that the District Magistrate, Nagpur found no record of the certificate's issuance. On the petitioner's candid statement that, having been appointed in the handicapped open category, she will not claim any Scheduled Tribe benefit in her service career, the Court declared that she shall be treated as a handicapped open category candidate for all purposes in her service career, allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the office memorandum dated 8th December, 2023, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6475-DB

¶2

1/4 35-wp-63-24(j).odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2024

¶5

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre, Aged : 40 years, Occ. Service R/o NIT Colony, HIG 9/42, Atrey Layout, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur-440022 ... Petitioner

¶6

// VERSUS //

¶7

The Government of India, Ministry of Communication Department of Telecommunication, through its Secretary (T), Department of Tele Communications, Ministry of Communications, Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001

¶8

Additional Secretary (T), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashok Road, New Delhi 110 001

¶9

Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001

¶10

Under Secretary (Admin), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents

¶11

Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S.Deshpande, ASGI, for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 7^th JULY, 2025.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

¶14

Sknair

¶15

2/4 35-wp-63-24(j).odt

¶16

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶17

By this petition, the submission of the petitioner is that she was appointed from Physically Handicapped Category as Junior Wireless Officer by following due process of law. In support of her submission, she has placed on record Disability Certificate dated 10^th December, 2015, issued by the competent authority. According to her, by impugned office memorandum dated 8^th December, 2023, she was asked to produce certificate of Schedule Tribe Category from the competent authority. Therefore, it is her submission that when she was not appointed from any reserve category, directions issued by respondent no.1 are illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

The respondents filed their affidavit dated 15^th March, 2024 and in paragraph 3 of their written statement stated as under:

¶19

“3. Although she was selected against the Physically Handicapped Category, however since ‘ST’ status entails certain benefits in Promotion etc., therefore, as per the extent norms the Caste Certificate is required to be verified by the Department before her confirmation to the post of Junior Wireless Officer. Accordingly, her caste certificate was sent to the issuing authority for verification. The Caste issuing Authority i.e.

¶20

Sknair

¶21

3/4 35-wp-63-24(j).odt

¶22

District Magistrate, Nagpur intimated that the entry regarding issue of Caste Certificate in respect of Ms. Archana Pancham Khapre was not found in the records. Accordingly, vide OM dated 08.12.2023 she was requested/advised to get the ST Certificate verified within 30 days as per the procedure being followed in the State of Maharashtra. Instead of taking steps to get her certificate verified, Smt. Archana Pancham Khapre, JWO has filed the present petition.”

¶23

As such, it is the submission of the respondent that only for the reason that in view of petitioner’s claim promotion in future, then in that case, the caste validity certificate will be required in the matter. However, the petitioner candidly made a statement that she being appointed in the handicapped open category, will not claim any benefit of the Scheduled Tribe Category in her service career from the respondents.

¶24

In view of the statement made by the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner will be treated as a candidate from handicapped open category for all purpose in her service career in the respondent department and will not be entitled to claim benefit of Schedule Caste Category.

¶25

In view of above, petition is allowed and the office memorandum dated 8^th December, 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

Sknair

4/4

35-wp-63-24(j).odt

The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order

¶30

as to costs.

¶31

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J.]

¶32

Sknair

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre v. Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Dept. of Telecommunication, Thr. Secy. (T) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss. Archana Pancham Khapre v. Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Dept. of Telecommunication, Thr. Secy. (T) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhanlal S/O Shrikhargeram Bohat Vs Dinesh Gendlal Fatod and Another

Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) vs S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Member Secretary and Ors.

Kamala Wd/O. Nikhil Kumar Banerjee and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Land Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Anagha Anil Gandhamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Mamta D/O Vinayakrao Kolamkar (Blind) Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Hanumansingh S/O. Mahadeosingh Gaherwar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Irrigation of Water Resource Dept., Mumbai and Ors.