Bombay High CourtWP/4822/2014dismissedrule discharged

Ajay Dhansing Daholiya v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2015-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.L. Achliya2 pages

{1} wp4822-14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4822 OF 2014 AJAY DHANSING DAHOLIYA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Talekar S.B.

AGP for Respondents State: Mr.G.K.Thigale Kain Rakesh Nemichandji For R.2 ...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.

DATE : 9th February, 2015.

P.C. :

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.P.Ramtekkar and others V/s Union of India and others reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 419 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Milind and others reported in (2001) 1 S.C.C. 4, the petitioner is entitled for protection in service. 2] Petitioner has been terminated only on the ground that he could not produce validity certificate. The petitioner belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe and as per the Government Resolution of 1995 protection is granted to persons who have been appointed

{2} wp4822-14.odt from Scheduled Tribe category.

3] We have heard learned AGP also. In view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Sonune V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457, protection can be only granted if the caste claim/tribe claim is invalidated otherwise than fraud and appointment of petitioner is made prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (23 of 2001).

4] The said Act has come into effect from 18/10/2001. The petitioner is appointed in the year 2003. Even the validation proceedings till date are not referred to the committee. In light of that the petitioner cannot seek protection.

5] Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. V.L.ACHLIYA,J.

S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

umg/