SHASHIKALA W/O HARIDAS PILLAY Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, a retired teacher having opted for a voluntary retirement, is aggrieved by the communication, dated 20/07/2017, by which, respondent No.1 has directed her to submit her tribe validity certificate in view of her appointment having been made purportedly under the scheduled tribe category on 29/07/1987, as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement on health grounds on 25/01/2017.

(3.) Having considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates, we find that the controversy emerging from these proceedings has its roots in the factum of appointment of the petitioner as a Assistant Teacher. The contention of the petitioner is that she never sought a tribe certificate, though she belongs to the Halba tribe. She applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, in pursuance to a general advertisement published in the State of Maharashtra. She has undergone the selection process without relying upon her scheduled tribe status and she was appointed from the open category. Her appointment letter, dated 29/07/1987 indicates no category, under which, she has been selected and appointed. It is contended that as the petitioner had applied from the open category and had never stated her tribe in her application form, she was considered for appointment from the open category.