Bombay High CourtWP/2788/2017dispossed offdismiss for default

Ku. Sangita D/O Chhannusing Padol v. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commitee, Buldhana And Another

2017-06-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo2 pages

1 wp2788.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.2788 OF 2017 (Ku. Sangita d/o Chhannusing Padol ..vs.. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Buldhana and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Ritu Kaliya, A.G.P. for respondent No.1, Smt. S.S. Jachak, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

DATED : 21-06-2017 The petitioner is born on 16-06-1976. Caste Certificate came to be issued on 24-08-1992 when she was about 16 years old, showing that she belongs to Rajput Bhamta (VJ-A). On the basis of that certificate, she got employment on 26-6-1998 with respondent No.2. Her caste claim has been invalidated by respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee on 01-02-2017. Learned Advocate Shri N.B. Kalwaghe for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claiming only protection in employment as per Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported at 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457.

2 wp2788.17 We have heard respective Advocates appearing for the respondents. Perusal of order of Scrutiny Committee dated 01-02-2017 does not show any findings to the prejudice of the petitioner. Committee has not found the petitioner to have indulged in any fraud or malpractice either for procuring caste certificate or for getting employment. We, therefore, find her entitled to protection.

In this situation, subject to petitioner filing an undertaking with the registry of this Court, with her employer and respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee within six weeks from today that neither she nor her progeny shall claim benefit and status as Rajput Bhamta, her employment shall remain protected in terms of Full Bench Judgment referred supra.

JUDGE JUDGE adgokar