Vikas Yuvaraj Sarje v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO. 7772 OF 2015 VIKAS YUVARAJ SARJE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Wakure Sanjay A. AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.A.G. Magre.

Advocate for R.No.2 : Mr.D.S. Bagul.

Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr.Bade Patil K.D. ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

Dated: OCTOBER 21, 2015 ...

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State and learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457) and the judgment of this Court in case of Prakash s/o Motiram Piratwad vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., in Writ Petition No.7434 of

2011 delivered on 26th June, 2015, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for protection in service. He, therefore, submits that petition deserves to be allowed in the light of aforesaid judgments.

The learned AGP submits that the action has been rightly taken. Merely because no case of any fraud being played in obtaining the caste certificate is made out, that by itself would not be sufficient to contend that the consequences specified under Section 10 of the Maharashtra SC, ST, DNT, VJNT and SBC (Regularization of issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2000 would not follow. The petitioner cannot claim for any protection in service.

In the light of above, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 26th June, 2015 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.7434 of 2011 in case of Prakash s/o Motiram Piratwad (supra), we pass the following order:

ORDER

I) The order dated 26th April, 2006 issued by respondent No.2 terminating services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reinstate the

petitioner in service. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages from 27th April, 2006 till he is reinstated in service. The said period, nonetheless, be counted for continuity in service and for all future retiral and monetary benefits.

II) The petitioner naturally, would not be entitled for the benefit of his Scheduled Tribe category and entry of the same would be taken in the service book of the petitioner.

III) Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

(A.M. BADAR, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/