nagpur bench writ petition no. 4237 of 2014

 1 WP.4237.14.odt C
ou
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
WRIT PETITION NO. 4237 OF 2014
ig
h
Shri Hiralal s/o Suryabhan Hedaoo,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation :
Service, R/o Shri Ravindra Nimje,
Plot No. 626, Chitnis Nagar, Umred
Road, Nagpur. ...... PETITIONER.
H
....Versus....
B
om
ba
y
1] The President, Dr. Manorama & Prof. Haribhau
Shankarrao Pundkar Arts, Commerce
and Science College, Balapur,
District Akola.
2] The Principal, Dr. Manorama & Prof. Haribhau
Shankarrao Pundkar Arts, Commerce
and Science College, Balapur,
District Akola. .....
RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A.W. Paunikar, Advocate for petitioner,
Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2015.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:40:08 :::
1] C
ou
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)
rt
2 WP.4237.14.odt Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved ig
h
2]
by the termination order dated 28.3.2013. The petitioner came to be H
appointed as Laboratory Attendant on 1.1.1999 against the seat ba
y
reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. However, the Scrutiny Committee on B
om
reference found that the petitioner's claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe was not just and he was belonging to Halba Koshti.
3]
The Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke .vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 (5) Mh. L.J. 921 and the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Sonowane .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 Vol. I Mh. L.J. 457 have held that such of the persons who claim to be belonging to Halba Scheduled ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:40:08 :::
3 WP.4237.14.odt rt
Tribe but are Halba­Koshti are entitled to protection if appointed prior C
ou
to 30.11.2000. Undisputedly, the petitioner's appointment is prior to that date. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the 4]
ig
h
petition.
However, Mr. A.R. Deshpande, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2, submits that prior to petitioner's termination, ba
y
H
the petitioner was already suspended on other grounds. 5]
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we B
om
pass the following order :­
I. The termination of the petitioner dated 28.3.2013 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with effect from the said date. Though the petitioner would not be entitled to wages for the period for which he was out of employment, he would be entitled to continuity in service for all the other purposes.
II. Needless to state that on the reinstatement of the petitioner, ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:40:08 :::
4 WP.4237.14.odt rt
the suspension which is already in operation on the said date C
ou
shall continue. The future of the service of the petitioner shall be governed by the final decision in the departmental proceedings. ig
h
III. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to H
costs.
JUDGE.
B
om
ba
y
J.
J
UDGE.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2015 16:40:08 :::