Sunil S/O Subramani Tadam v. The District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2457 OF 2017 (Sunil s/o Subramani Tadam Vs. The District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate h/f S.R. Ghatole, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for Respondent No.1.

Shri Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S.M. MODAK , JJ.

DATE: 13 th FEBRUARY, 2020.

1] We have perused the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by this Court which reads as under:

Heard.

It is the contention of the petitioner that though his initial appointment is against an open post and though the petitioner is not insisting upon his claim seeking benefit of belonging to Scheduled Tribe, his salary has been stopped for not getting his caste claim validated.

In that view of the matter, issue notice returnable after Vacation.

Mr. C.A. Lokhande, learned A.G.P.

waives service on behalf of respondent no.1.

Hamdast is granted for service upon respondent nos. 2 and 3.

By way of ad interim order, the respondents are directed not to take any

coercive steps against the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of Validity Certificate and they are further directed not to withhold the salary of the petitioner on the said ground.

2] The learned Advocate for the petitioner has made three categorical statements before us, which we have recorded as order:- (a) The petitioner was never appointed to the reserved category post of "Cook Maid" when he joined duty on 01.08.1989 and he was granted promotion as a "Cook" on account of the retirement of Smt. Kesribai Adhav.

This promotion was not on account of any reservation.

(b)He would be attaining the age of superannuation in March 2021 (March Two Thousand Twenty One).

(c) He would not claim any benefits available to the reserved category to which he belongs in view of his Tribe Mannewar Scheduled Tribe.

3] The learned AGP submits that the record of respondent Nos.2 and 3 creates a picture that the petitioner was appointed as a "Cook Maid" owing to his Scheduled Tribe category.

4] We do not find from the appointment order issued to the petitioner that he was appointed on a post,

which can be said to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. 5] Considering the above, this petition is disposed off and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner by causing an enquiry as is permissible in law. Respondent No.1 shall find out as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was to a post reserved for any backward category. The report of the enquiry shall be prepared by respondent No.1 and based on his findings, he shall pass an appropriate order as regards the services of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, he would be at liberty to the avail of a remedy as may be permissible in law. 6] The first respondent shall conclude the enquiry after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent school and shall take a decision on or before 30.06.2020.

7] The petitioner as well as the representative of respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before respondent No.1 on 02.03.2020.

8] The ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 24.04.2017 shall continue until 30.06.2020 or till respondent No.1 passes an order, which ever is earlier. (S.M. Modak, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) Nikhare