nagpur bench writ petition no. 3907 2014

WP.3907.14
…
C
ou
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
rt
1
WRIT PETITION NO. 3907/2014 ig
h
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. State of Maharashtra
Through its secretary
Ministry of Tribal Welfare
Mantralaya, Mumbai­32.
ba
y
1)
H
v e r s u s
...PETITIONER. 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.
om
2)
B
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 :::
WP.3907.14
rt
2
1.
C
ou
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.R.Gavai, J. ) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent.
2.
The petitioner though has approached this Court being ig
h
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 H
his claim in the petition only for grant of protection of the petitioner’s services. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1982. It is ba
y
3.
the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s appointment om
was not against any reserved category but against an Open category.
B
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 :::
WP.3907.14
was reverted to the earlier post in the year 2008.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner C
ou
6.
rt
3
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 7.
ig
h
Maharashtra :2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The H
respondents are directed to protect the services of the petitioner and treat him as a candidate belonging to Open category.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no ba
y
8.
om
order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
B
sahare
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:23:38 :::