Tai D/O Manik Koli Alias Swati W/O Suresh Koli vs the State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Tai D/O Manik Koli Alias Swati W/O Suresh Koli vs the State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection: Management/Respondent No.3 directed not to fill up the posts occupied by the Petitioners until further orders; notices issued to Respondents, returnable on 19th August, 2025, with affidavits-in-reply due one week prior and undertakings required from the Petitioners.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders invalidating the Petitioners' claims to belong to the 'Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe' should be interfered with by this Court. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Notice was ordered to be issued to the Respondents, returnable on 19th August, 2025; the learned Addl.GP waived service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State).

Key takeaways

The affidavit-in-reply was directed to be filed at least one week prior to the returnable date.ratio¶22
Both Petitioners were required to tender affidavit undertakings that, if this Court grants reinstatement in service or on a supernumerary post until their claims are validated, they would not seek increments, revision of pay scale, promotion or other service benefits until validation.ratio¶23
The Management/Respondent No.3 was directed not to fill up the posts occupied by the two Petitioners until further orders.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Gautam A. Ankhad and Ravindra V. Ghuge, JJ.) in Writ Petition Nos. 8876 and 9077 of 2025. Both Petitioners claimed to belong to the 'Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe'; their claims were invalidated by the impugned orders, and before they could approach the Court, their common employer (the institution, i.e., the Management/Respondent No.3) terminated their services on account of the invalidation. The Court: (i) issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 19th August, 2025, with the learned Addl.GP waiving service for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State); (ii) directed affidavits-in-reply to be filed at least one week prior to the returnable date; (iii) required both Petitioners to tender undertakings that, if reinstated in service or on a supernumerary post until their claims are validated, they would not seek increments, pay-scale revision, promotion or other service benefits; and (iv) directed the Management/Respondent No.3 not to fill up the posts occupied by the two Petitioners until further orders. No statute or precedent was cited in this interim order.

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.07.10 19:14:31 +0530

Trupti

39- 62 common order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 8876 OF 2025

Tai d/o Manik Koli @ Swati w/o Suresh Koli … Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 9077 OF 2025

Suvarna d/o Hanmant Koli … Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

Mr.Sushant Yeramwar for the Petitioner in both the Petitions.

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Mr.Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State in WP No. 8876 of 2025.

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Mr.S.H.Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State in WP No.9077 of 2025.

P.C.:-

Both these Petitioners claim to be belonging to the 'Koli

Mahadev Scheduled Tribe' category. By the impugned orders, their claims

have been invalidated. However, before the Petitioners could approach this

1/2

Trupti

39- 62 common order

Court, their employer, which is the same institution, has terminated their services on account of the invalidation of their caste claims.

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 19^th August, 2025. The learned Addl.GP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State.

Let the affidavit-in-reply be filed, at least, one week prior to the returnable dated.

Both the Petitioners would tender their affidavit undertaking stating therein that if this Court grants reinstatement in service or reinstatement on a supernumerary post, until their claims are validated, they would not seek any increments/revision of pay scale/promotion/service benefits etc. till their claims are validated.

Considering the above, we direct the Management/ Respondent No.3 not to fill up the posts occupied by these two Petitioners until further orders.

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

2/2