← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2907/2018dismissedrule discharged

Sindhu Rajesh Sangale @ Sindhu Digambar Khedkar v. State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary, Public Works Dept. Mumbai And Others

2018-06-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp2907.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2907/2018 Sindhu Rajesh Sangale @ Sindhu Digambar Khedkar ..Vs..

State of Maharashtra and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 25.6.2018.

1.

Petitioner, who entered service as Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe, later on gave up her tribe claim. Scrutiny Committee in its order dated 11th February, 2016 has expressly mentioned that on 24.12.2014 petitioner gave a letter disclosing that she does not have evidence of Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe and she was not availing any benefit of scheduled tribe. She requested Scrutiny Committee to accept the report of vigilance cell and to invalidate her caste claim. This letter is not produced before us by petitioner. 2.

Contention is, petitioner was later on absorbed in employment as special backward classes (SBC) candidate.

3.

Absorption as SBC does not validate her entry into employment as scheduled tribe.

4.

In any case, when she has gone to Labour

2 wp2907.18 Court and thereafter Industrial Court and lastly, come to this Court, she ought to have produced letter dated 24.12.2014 to substantiate her contentions. That has not been done.

5.

We, therefore, find this petition abuse of process of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 6.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.