IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. …
WRIT PETITION NO. 3907/2014
Sunil s/o Pundlikrao Dhait
Aged about 56 years, presently working as Junior Clerk in the office of
Respondent no.4
Resident of Plot No.40, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Nagpur. ...PETITIONER.
v e r s u s
1)
State of Maharashtra
Through its secretary
Ministry of Tribal Welfare Mantralaya, Mumbai32.
2)
The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur Division
Nagpur: Through its Secretary
3)
Regional Deputy Director of Industries
Nagpur Division, Udyog Bhavan
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4)
District Industries Centre
Administrative Building, Ground Floor
national Highway No.6,
Bhandara: Through its Assistant Director.
...RESPONDENTS
…........................................................................................................................
Mr. N.C. Phadnis, Adv.for petitioner
Mr. S.S.Doiphode, A.G.P. for respondents
............................................................................................................................
CORAM:
B.R.GAVAI &
Mrs. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 26th February, 2015.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:23:38 ::: Bombay High Court WP.3907.14 2
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.R.Gavai, J. )
1. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent.
2.
The petitioner though has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the order passed by the
respondent no.2Scrutiny Committee invalidating his
claim as belonging to “Banjara”
Vimukta JatiA, he has given up the said challenge and restricted
his claim in the petition only for
grant of protection of the
petitioner’s services. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1982. It is
the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s appointment
was not against any reserved category
but against an Open category. 4. In the
affidavitinreply filed by the employer/
respondent no.3, it is stated that though initially
the petitioner was appointed against a
post reserved for Scheduled Tribe
category, he was promoted against an Open category.
5.
Though the petitioner was promoted against the post
reserved for DTNT category in the year 2000, at this request, he
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:23:38 ::: Bombay High Court WP.3907.14 3
was reverted to the earlier post in the year 2008.
6. Taking into consideration the
fact that the petitioner has almost put in 34years’ service, we find that the petitioner’s
case would be covered by the law laid down by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs., State of
Maharashtra :2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. 7.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The
respondents are directed to protect the services of the petitioner
and treat him as a candidate belonging to Open category.
8.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare ::: Downloaded on -
31/03/2015 16:23:38 :::
No comments:
Post a Comment