Vijay Ramaji Hedaoo vs Director,Research WP 625/1999 on 6 January, 2015

Bombay High Court

Vijay Ramaji Hedaoo vs Director,Research & ... on 6 January, 2015

Bench: Anoop V. Mohta

WP625.99.odt                       

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.625 OF 1999

     Vijay s/o Ramaji Hedaoo,

     Aged about.. years,

     Occupation - Service,

     C/o. Defence Electronics Research

     Laboratory, Chandrayanagutta Lines,

     Hyderabad.                                                  ..    Petitioner

                       ig .. Versus ..

     1] The Director,

        Research and Development Organisation,

        Defence Electronics Research Laboratory,

        Chandrayanagutta Lines,

        Hyderabad.

     2] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

        Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.

     3] Union of India, through the Secretary,

        Ministry of Social Justice and 

        Empowerment, Shashtri Bhawan,

        New Delhi.                                               ..   Respondents

                          ..........

     Mr. R.M. Bhangade, Advocate for petitioner,

     Mr. Jayant Mokadam, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                         ..........

                          CORAM :  ANOOP V. MOHTA  AND

                                    A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 06, 2015.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) 1] Taken out from final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2] We are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition in view of the following facts and circumstances.

3] The petitioner's claim of 'Halba Koshti' is rejected by order dated 30.10.1998, thereby declared that the petitioner does not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe and the caste certificate so issued is cancelled and confiscated.

4] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, however, seeks protection of service as contemplated under various Supreme Court judgments as well as High Courts judgments which are dealt with by a full bench of this High Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J.

457 dated 22.12.2014. Reliance is placed on the following paragraphs :

53. In view of above, we answer question no.1 in the affirmative, holding that the relief of protection of service after invalidation of caste claim can be granted by the High Court on the basis of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 921 = (2012) 8 SCC 430, and the subsequent decision in the case of Shalini .vs. New English High School Association and others, reported in 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 913 = (2013) 16 SCC 526.

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) upon invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee, the benefits obtained or appointments secured from 28.11.2000 up to 18.10.2001, can be withdrawn or cancelled, depending upon the terms of the employment, if any, in writing.

(iii) the benefits obtained or appointments secured after coming into force of the said Act on 18.10.2001 can be withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee.

(iv) the benefits of protection in service upon invalidation of the caste claim is available not only to the persons belonging to "Koshti" and "Halba Koshti", but it is also available to the persons belonging to Special Backward Class category on the same terms as is available to "Koshti" and "Halba Koshti", and

(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.

5] The Full Bench of this Court in Arun (supra) has accepted the basic principles to grant protection of services even to other category/caste than "Halba/Koshti" even after invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee, by following of the Supreme Court judgments stated to be under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Now the issue is also settled by this court in this regard as the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of above, requires to follow the Supreme Court judgments, irrespective of nature of judgment under Articles 141 or 142 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties, therefore, submitted to pass the protective order on similar lines.

6] In the present facts, the petitioner has been in service since 1989 now declared to be belonging to SBC, the protection can be extended even to such community, in view of specific observation in paras 60 and 61, held as under :

"..It is made clear that the respondent in the said case shall not be entitled to claim any benefit in future as a Scheduled Caste candidate, but no benefit admissible to him as an OBC candidate shall be denied. Following the said decision of the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Dafade's case (supra) has granted protection to the persons belonging to "Koli" caste falling in the Special Backward Class category.

ig In view of the aforestated law laid down by the Apex Court after considering the effect of the Government Resolutions dated 15-6-1995 and 30-6-2004, which are applicable to all the persons belonging to the Special Backward Class category, we are of the view that the protection granted in Milind's case to the persons belonging to caste "Koshti" or "Halba Koshti" in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Milind's case, is also available to all the persons belonging to the Special Backward Class category included in the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995. There cannot be any different treatment for the persons, who are similarly situated, merely for the reason that in most of the cases, the persons belonging to caste "Koshti" or "Halba Koshti" have approached the Apex Court for grant of protection. The interpretation of Section 10 of the said Act placed by the Apex Court in Shalini's case, applies with equal force to the guideline Nos.14 and 15 in Madhuri Patil's case. In view of this, we do not find any justification or propriety in the action of the Government of India in refusing to grant protection to the persons belonging to the caste other than "Koshti" or "Halba Koshti". We answer question No.(a) in para 55 above, holding that the persons belonging to Special Backward Category are entitled to the same protection as has been granted to the persons belonging to caste "Koshti" and "Halba Koshti".

7] The petitioner, therefore, restricted this petition for the protection of service, as the petitioner has been in service of the respondents since 1989 based upon the said invalidated certificate, but in view of above judgments, apart from long service period so referred.

In the interest of justice, we also inclined to grant protection. Therefore, following conditions and order :

ig O R D E R

(a) The petitioner is entitled for protection of service, however, not entitled for any further caste benefits on the basis of invalidated caste certificate, except a continuity of service.

(b) The privileges/benefits granted after 28.11.2000 on the basis of the earlier caste certificate that he belongs to 'Koshti" Scheduled Tribe, the respondent/employer are at liberty to withdraw the said benefit/privilege and may restore the position as on 28.11.2000 depending upon the written service agreement.

(c) The petitioner to submit a fresh caste certificate to complete the formality of service record, at earliest, preferably within a period of nine months. Both the parties to cooperate accordingly. Parties to do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order for the same.

The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

                   A.R. JOSHI, J.                 ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

                       ig            -0-0-0-0-

     Gulande