Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 54 (BOM)

Chandrapal v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee

2015-01-08

A.R.JOSHI, ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The matter is called out from final hearing board. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner is stated to be belongs to "Rajput Bhamta", but by the impugned order the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner and observed that the caste of the petitioner as recorded "Rajput" in his school record. Therefore, challenge to the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 of the respondent Scrutiny Committee. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded, on instructions, that the petitioner being single and as there is no question of issue or future generation, at this stage, based upon Full Bench judgment in the matter of Arun s/o Vishwanath .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457, submitted and restricted his case only for protection of service. Strong reliance is made to paragraph 75 clauses (i) and (v), which can be reproduced as under : 75. We, therefore, do not enter into the merits of the claim and leave it for the concerned Benches to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the protection need to be granted or not. But we conclude in this judgment that - (i) mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from the employment or cancellation of appointments that have become final prior to the decision in Milind's case on 28.11.2000. (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (v) the claim of the persons belonging to Nomadic Tribes, Vimukta Jatis and Other Backward Class category shall be decided on the lines of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Unnikrishnan and another .vs. V. K. Mahanudevan and others, reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 1 : 2014 (4) SCC 434 ." The learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed to grant protection based upon the Supreme Court judgments so read and referred in the Full Bench judgment. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner, based upon the caste certificate as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" which was granted by the District Magistrate on 25.02.1991 and based upon then existing provisions of law the employer confirmed the services of the petitioner on 28.03.1994, on a condition that the petitioner should get his caste certificate scrutinized from the District Magistrate/ Collector, Buldana. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner, based upon the caste certificate as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" which was granted by the District Magistrate on 25.02.1991 and based upon then existing provisions of law the employer confirmed the services of the petitioner on 28.03.1994, on a condition that the petitioner should get his caste certificate scrutinized from the District Magistrate/ Collector, Buldana. The District Magistrate by order dated 25.02.1991 had confirmed/ granted Caste Validity to the petitioner and intimated to the respondent No.2 accordingly. However, the respondent/ employer issued letter to the petitioner and called upon him to produce a Caste Validity Certificate on basis of Government Resolution Dt. 05.07.1997. The petitioner, accordingly participated in the proceedings initiated before the Scrutiny Committee placed on record to justify his caste claim, the documents including the documents of other relatives referring to the caste in question. There are no direct document to support the case. The Vigilance Cell report is also not in favour of the petitioner. The conclusion of the Scrutiny Committee is restricted to caste "Rajput". There is no observation and/ or finding given with regard to any sort of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner at any point of time. The basic authority, at the relevant time, in fact, validated the caste claim of the petitioner as "Rajput Bhamta". Therefore, as submitted, the petitioner throughout pursuing his claim bonafidely. 5. The fact that the petitioner is in service since 16.04.1990 with respondent No.2 till this date and has near about 6-7 years to retire and to avoid further complications, restricted his case only for protection of service. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay, apart from the judgment as referred above, we are also inclined to grant protection of service to the petitioner. Therefore, following order. ORDER a) The petitioner is entitled for protection of service, however, is not entitled for any benefits from 28.11.2000 even if procured or obtained based upon the invalidated caste certificate, except continuity of service. b) The privileges/benefits granted after 28.11.2000 on the basis of the earlier caste certificate that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta" Vimukta Jati, the respondent/employer are at liberty to withdraw the said benefit/privilege and may restore the position as on 28.11.2000 depending upon written service agreement. b) The privileges/benefits granted after 28.11.2000 on the basis of the earlier caste certificate that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta" Vimukta Jati, the respondent/employer are at liberty to withdraw the said benefit/privilege and may restore the position as on 28.11.2000 depending upon written service agreement. c) The petitioner to submit the fresh caste certificate to complete the formality with service record, as early as, possible preferably within a period of eight months. Both the parties to cooperate accordingly. d) Parties to do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order for the same. e) However, in view of above, the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.