Nishikant Shaligram Sapkale v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member Secretary And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11081 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15991 OF 2016 Nishikant Shaligram Sapkale

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar & another

...Respondents

.....

Shri S.S.Phatale, advocate for petitioner Shri R.B.Bagul, A.G.P.for respondent no.1 Ms Chaitali Kutti, advocate for respondent no.2 .....

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & K.L.WADANE, JJ.

DATED : 20th January, 2017 O R D E R :- Mr. Phatale, learned counsel submits that the Tribe Claim of the petitioner as belonging to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe is pending consideration with the Committee. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the employer Corporation to submit the validity, else action would be taken.

- 2 - 2.

The petitioner filed instant Writ Petition and this Court on 3.11.2016 had protected the services of the petitioner. However, prior to said date on 27.10.2016 it is reported that the termination order is issued by the employer. The learned counsel submits that when the validity proceeding is pending with the Committee, the petitioner could not have been terminated. The said order be set aside.

3.

The learned A.G.P., on instructions, submits that validation proceedings in respect of claim of the petitioner is pending and the same is kept for hearing on 3.2.2017. If the petitioner cooperates, the same would be decided expeditiously.

4.

Mrs. Kutti, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that as the petitioner failed to produce the validity and the petitioner was appointed from the reserved category, the respondent no.2 has rightly passed the order. 5.

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

- 3 - 6.

It appears that the Committee could not decide the validation proceedings as yet. The vigilance is conducted. The report of vigilance is served on the petitioner and now the date of hearing is kept on 3.2.2017. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 3.2.2017 and put forth his case.

The petitioner shall not seek further adjournments. The claim of the petitioner is not yet invalidated. As such, the petitioner ought not to have been terminated from the services. This Court had granted protection to the petitioner. However, it appears that prior to the date the protection was granted, respondent no.2 has issued the termination order. As the validation proceedings are yet pending, we pass the following order. (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 3.2.2017 and shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the validation proceedings. The same shall be decided within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Committee on 3.2.2017.

(ii) The impugned order of termination is quashed and set aside.

- 4 - (iii) The respondent no.2 shall reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of seven days from today.

(iv) The period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement shall be counted for continuity. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for salary/wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

(v) Rule accordingly made absolute. No costs.

(vi) In view of disposal of Writ Petition, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of.

(K.L.WADANE, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) dbm/wp11081.16