Nathu Rajaram Khalale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7677/2014 Nathu Rajaram Khalale Age 42 years, Occ-Service R/o Tamaswadi, Tq. Parola Dist.Jalgaon ..PETITIONER

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

3] The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon 4] The Secretary Nagrik Shikshan Mandal High School & Junior College Tamaswadi, Tq. Parola, Dist.Jalgaon 5] The Head Master Nagrik Shikshan Mandal High School & Junior College Tamaswadi, Tq. Parola, Dist.Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENTS ...

Mr.E.S.Murge,Adv. for petitioner Mr.P.N.Mulay,AGP for Respondent State Mr.Bade Patil,Adv. For respondent no.2

{2} Mr.V.R.Bhoomkar,Adv. For R. 4 & 5 ...

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

DATE : 15th January, 2015.

P.C. :

Mr.Murge, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the caste certificate is rejected by the authority on technical ground. The petitioner is working as a Peon since 1995 after being appointed through valid selection committee. According to the learned counsel, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Sonune V/s State of Maharashtra and others dated 22/12/2014, the petitioner is entitled for protection in service as the Committee has nowhere held that the said certificate is obtained by fraud.

2] We have heard Mr.Bade Patil, learned counsel for the Committee and Mr.Bhomkar, learned counsel for employer. 3] It is not disputed that the tribe claim of the petitioner is not validated, however, the same is rejected on technical ground. The committee has nowhere come to the conclusion that the said certificate is obtained by fraud. The petitioner is appointed as a Peon in the year 1995.

4] In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun referred supra, the petitioner would be entitled for protection in service, however, henceforth he shall not be entitled

{3} for any benefit of reservation either for promotion or for any other purposes.

5] In light of the above, we pass the following order : a] Service of the petitioner shall not be terminated on the ground that his tribe claim is not validated, however, henceforth the petitioner shall not claim any benefit of reservation for promotion or otherwise in service or in any walk of life. The petitioner can be considered from open category for all service purposes.

6] Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. This order is passed in the peculiar facts of the present case and shall not be considered as a precedent.

V.L.ACHLIYA,J.

S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

umg/