NIRANJAN LAXMINARAYAN YEDDELOO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/ petitioner employee of Respondent No. 3 has sought review of the judgment dated 09.04.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2006. The Hon'ble Apex Court permitted its filing when said judgment was questioned in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 11159 of 2009 and on 12.05.2009 it has requested this Court to have a fresh look as the judgment earlier delivered by this Court in the case of Anil Ramdas Mede vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 5090 of 2003 decided on 26.08.2004) holding Telugu to be a language and not a caste was not considered and there was no finding in that connection in the impugned judgment. Reference to documents is as per their serial number in order of Scrutiny Committee.

(2.) We have heard Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner, Shri Parihar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in this background.

(3.) Shri Kilor, learned counsel has pointed out judgment in Writ Petition No. 5090 of 2003 dated 26.08.2004 (Anil Ramdas Mede vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), particularly para 7 therein to show a finding that Telugu has been found to be an official language under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India and not a caste. He further states that same view has been followed in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2007 decided on 24.10.2008 (Ajay Ramdas Mede vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and later on in Writ Petition No. 3417 of 2008 decided on 08.09.2009 (Mohit Suresh Mede & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). His contention is only because Telugu has been shown as caste in documents at Sr. Nos. 4 & 5 filed by applicant / petitioner before Scrutiny Committee, the documents at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 7 & 9 which recorded the caste of the petitioner and his relatives as Mannewar could not have been overlooked. His other contention is, these documents at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 7 & 9 needed independent and impartial consideration and as that has not been done, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction. Our attention has been invited to representation dated 21.03.2005 submitted by the petitioner to Scrutiny Committee in this respect to show that the view of Division Bench in the case of Anil Ramdas Mede vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has been expressly pressed into service and it has also been pointed out that Telugu is an official language. That view does not find consideration in the impugned order of Scrutiny Committee.