Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2991 (BOM)

Madhukar Shankar Jawanjal v. Union of India

2018-12-18

R.K.DESHPANDE, VINAY JOSHI

body2018
ORDER : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the employees of Meteorological Department of Government of India under the Ministry of Earth and Sciences. They were appointed on different posts during the period from 1982 to 1998 reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Except three, all others claimed that they belong to Halba - Scheduled Tribe. Out of three, one claimed that he belongs to "Chhatri" tribe, one belongs to "Nahul" tribe and the other belongs to "Thakur - Scheduled Tribes". All of them have been terminated from service on the ground that they have failed to get their tribe claims validated from the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. 3. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was brought into force with effect from 23.05.2001 under which the Scrutiny Committees are constituted to scrutinize and verify the caste claims of the persons appointed against the posts reserved for the backward class categories. In terms of Section 6(3) of the said Act, a statutory obligation is created upon the appointing authority to make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committee for the verification of caste certificate and issue of validity certificate in case of the persons selected for an appointment to the post reserved for any of the backward class category. In view of this provision, it was the practice established that the Scrutiny Committee used to return the proposals for verification and scrutiny of the caste claim if the same were not forwarded to it by the employer or the appointing authority. It is in this background, the facts of the present case are required to be looked into. 4. The respondent-employer of the petitioners never forwarded the claims of any of the petitioners for scrutiny or verification of caste or tribe claims to the Scrutiny Committee and for that purpose, Writ Petition No. 275 of 2016 was filed by the intervenor claiming direction to the employer to forward the genuineness of the claims of the petitioners for the caste or tribe to which they belong for verification by the Scrutiny Committee. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 delivered in the said writ petition directed the employer to discharge the statutory obligation created under Section 6(3) of the said Act by forwarding the caste/tribe claim of the petitioners to the Scrutiny Committee. In compliance of this decision, the employer forwarded the claims of all the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee along with the concerned documents on or before 27.09.2016. 5. It seems that prior to the decision of this Court rendered on 04.08.2016, the Scrutiny Committee adopted 'online' procedure to invite the claims and documents from the candidates appointed against the posts reserved for any of the backward class category. Since, the claims of the petitioners forwarded by the employer on or before 27.09.2016 were not 'online' submission, the Scrutiny Committee returned the documents along with the proposals to the employer and insisted for 'online' submission of such claims by the candidates. It is the submission of the petitioners that all the documents are lying with the employer as a result of which the petitioners could not submit 'online' information to the Scrutiny Committee as was insisted. 6. It seems that on or before 16.07.2018, the respondent-employer has issued somewhat identical or similar show cause notices along with the charge and statement of allegations to the petitioners for failure to submit caste validity certificates. After conducting an enquiry, the services of the petitioners who were in the employment from 1984-85 were terminated for failure to produce caste validity certificate. These petitions, therefore, are also challenging the termination from service. It is an undisputed fact that all the petitioners were appointed against the posts reserved for backward class categories and unless their claims are validated after scrutiny and verification by the Scrutiny Committee, none of them shall be entitled to be continued in service. 7. Shri Aurangabadkar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent-department and Shri Bhandarkar, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor have strongly opposed the claim of the petitioner to challenge their termination by raising a preliminary objection that the remedy for it lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Shri Bhandarkar has urged that there is a collusion between the employer and the employees to see that the petitioners are retained in service without getting their claims validated through the Scrutiny Committee. Shri Bhandarkar has urged that there is a collusion between the employer and the employees to see that the petitioners are retained in service without getting their claims validated through the Scrutiny Committee. He has taken us through the article of charge and the statement of allegations levelled against each of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have no right to remain in the employment as in spite of several opportunities they have failed to get their claims verified through the Scrutiny Committee. According to him, the claims of all the petitioners are bogus and they do not deserve any sympathy. 8. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we do not find that it is a case where the petitioners and the respondent-employer are acting in collusion as is urged by Shri Bhandarkar. In terms of Section 6(3) of the said Act, it was for the employer to have collected the relevant information and the documents from the petitioners/employees appointed against the posts reserved for various backward class community and to forward the same to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, scrutiny and issuance of caste validity certificates. In the absence of any order of invalidation of caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee, the services of the petitioners could not have been dispensed with or terminated, as the petitioners were working on the posts even much before coming into force of the said Act. 9. It is in response to the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 275 of 2016, the employer has for the first time collected the information and documents from the petitioners and forwarded it to the Scrutiny Committee. Even if the petitioners had independently forwarded the information and documents to the Scrutiny Committee, the same would have been returned by the Committee as was the practice earlier established. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be blamed for failure to get their claims validated through the Scrutiny Committee prior to 01.05.2016. 10. Even if the petitioners had independently forwarded the information and documents to the Scrutiny Committee, the same would have been returned by the Committee as was the practice earlier established. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be blamed for failure to get their claims validated through the Scrutiny Committee prior to 01.05.2016. 10. After delivery of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 275 of 2016, the employer forwarded the claims on or before 27.09.2016 to the Scrutiny Committee along with the documents collected from the petitioners, but the Committee has returned it to the employer on the ground that there was change in the procedure with effect from 01.05.2016, as a result of which the claims were required to be submitted 'online' along with the documents by the petitioners. 11. Undisputedly, the information and the documents collected from the petitioners prior to 27.09.2016 are lying with the employer and till this date the same are not returned to the petitioners/employees. The show-cause notice, article of charge and the statement of allegations served upon the petitioners do not contain a charge either that the petitioners failed to furnish the relevant information or document to the employer in spite of asking for it after the decision in Writ Petition No. 275 of 23016 on 04.08.2016. We also find that the petitioners were unable to furnish the 'online' information and documents to the Scrutiny Committee after 01.05.2016 as all the documents and the information were lying with the employer. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be blamed for it. 12. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioners can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to challenge the termination from service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case which involves certain directions to be given to the Scrutiny Committee, the question of challenge to the order of termination becomes consequential which can be dealt with by this Court in these petitions without insisting upon the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. 13. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case which involves certain directions to be given to the Scrutiny Committee, the question of challenge to the order of termination becomes consequential which can be dealt with by this Court in these petitions without insisting upon the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. 13. Shri Aurangabadkar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, makes a statement before us that within a period of 8 days from today the entire documents submitted by the petitioners for being forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee shall be returned to them and it is the statement made before us on behalf of the petitioners that upon receipt of such documents, within a period of 7 days thereafter, the entire information as is required by the Scrutiny Committee shall be submitted 'online'. We are assured by the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee that the Scrutiny Committee shall not insist upon forwarding of the documents and information through the employer, but shall accept the 'online' information submitted by the petitioners individually and the claim shall not be rejected on any such ground. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the undisputed factual position, we pass the following order. [I] The respondent-employer is directed to return all the documents furnished by the petitioners in support of their caste verification within a period of 8 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. [II] The petitioners shall upon receipt of entire documents, furnish 'online' information to the Scrutiny Committee, which has the jurisdiction to deal with the caste claim within a period of 7 days thereafter. [III] The Scrutiny Committee shall not return or reject the claim of the petitioners on the ground that it is not forwarded through the employer. [IV] The Scrutiny Committee to verify the tribe claim of the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of complete 'online' information and the petitioners shall cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee in expeditious disposal of their claims. [IV] The Scrutiny Committee to verify the tribe claim of the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of complete 'online' information and the petitioners shall cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee in expeditious disposal of their claims. [V] The orders of termination are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service and they shall be continued in service till their claims are decided by the Scrutiny Committee, without backwages and the question of backwages is left open to be decided after the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. [VI] It shall be open for the employer to take such suitable action as shall be permissible in law in the light of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. 15. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. 16. Shri Aurangabadkar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent-Department seeks stay of the reinstatement of the petitioners in service. 17. Keeping in view me facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to accept such request. The same is rejected.