SUDHAKAR VITHAL KUMBHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is originally a resident of Village Sawargaon, post Pandhurna, district Chhindwara in State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not disputed that as a result of State reorganization, a part of the said district being Chandrapur, which was originally in the State of Madhya Pradesh, had gone into the State of Maharashtra. Earlier in the Presidential Scheduled Tribe Order issued in the year 1950 the tribe 'Halba' was recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the District of Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After reorganization, when Chandrapur was included within the territory of State of Maharashtra, the caste, 'Halba' was recognized as Scheduled Tribe also in the State of Maharashtra. It is also not disputed that the appellant herein was brought up and educated in District of Chhindwara. Subsequently, he applied in response to an advertisement for selection and appointment in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). It is not disputed that he was selected and appointed against the non-reserved vacancy on the basis of merit in the said post. In the year 1987, the appellant was promoted to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against a reserved vacancy on the basis of a certificate of being belonging to Halba tribe issued by the competent authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh. On 22nd August, 1988, respondent No.2 herein issued him show cause notice as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer as he was not entitled to the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant submitted an explanation to the said show cause justifying his promotion against the reserved post. Despite that explanation, the appellant was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Junior Engineer.

(2.) Aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of reversion. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2001 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner who comes from the State of Madhya Pradesh though belonged to Scheduled Tribe 'Halba' which is recognized as such in the State of Maharashtra is not entitled to benefit of reservation. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.

(3.) Mr. V. A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Maharashtra ought to have been referred to the Statutory Committee constituted on the basis of directions issued by this court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. {(1994) 6 SCC 241], where it was directed that in course of employment if any dispute arises as regard to the benefit of reservation the matter is required to be referred to a Scrutiny Committee.