Bombay High CourtWP/12673/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Syed Mukhtar Ahamad Syed Nabi v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-02-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane4 pages

1 WP 12673/16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12673 OF 2016 Syed Mukhtar Ahamad S/o Syed Nabi Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors.

Respondents Mr. S.B. Gastgar, Advocate for the petitioner Smt. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. Vakas S. Kodak, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Gundre, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2017 PER COURT :

Mr.Gastgar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to "Pinjara" caste. The evidence in that respect is also placed on record. Even the Validity Certificate of his near cousin is also placed on record, but the same

2 WP 12673/16 has not been considered by the Committee. Learned counsel further submits that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that on one document caste "Pinjari" is written in dark ink, the claim of the petitioner is invalidated. The same is erroneous. 2.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is appointed in the year 1998. There is no fraud on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, his services be protected.

It has been observed by the Committee that as per the old record, the word "Pinjara" is mentioned, but it is not a proper evidence. Considering the report of the Vigilance and in absence of substantial evidence, the Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The same is legal and proper.

The petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 with respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioner would be entitled for protection in service in view of the

3 WP 12673/16 Judgment of the Full Bench in a case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. In the light of above discussion, we proceed to pass the following order :-

O R D E R

(A) The order of the Committee invalidating caste claim of the petitioner is upheld.

(B) The respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall not take any adverse action against the petitioner only on the ground that his caste claim is invalidated. However, the petitioner shall not take benefit of reservation on the basis of Caste Certificate in any walk of life.

(D) In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

( K.L. WADANE, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

4 WP 12673/16 SRM/27/2/17