ARCHANA DADARAO PETHKAR Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination passed by their respective Employer as a consequence of invalidation of their caste claim. Though in the petitions as filed the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, invalidating caste claims of the petitioners as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, have also been impugned, the petitioners only claim protection in employment and expressly restrict their challenge only to the order of termination and have given up the claim to the status as belonging to HalbaScheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge of the judgment dated 11.3.2013 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012 and of fact that Respondent Employer, as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the grant of protection. In Writ Petition No. 5569/2012, Shri Narnaware, only had assisted this Court on behalf of similarly placed petitioner who acquiesced in order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe and had confined to seeking protection against the order of termination dated 03.11.2009, passed by Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited.

(2.) It is in this background, we have heard Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. S.W. Deshpande and Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Scrutiny Committee in respective matters and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State Government. At the request of the Counsel for petitioners'. Matters are taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

(3.) Shri Narnaware and Shri Marathe, respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners draw support from a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at C.N. Rudramurthy .vrs. K.Barkathulla Khan and others, 1998 8 SCC 275 to submit that last paragraph in Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Milind, 2001 1 SCC 4, also extends protection in employment. Official Liquidator .vrs. Dayanand and others, 2008 10 SCC 1 is pressed into service to urge that, it is not open to High Court to find out whether the said paragraph in Milind Katware's case is under Article 142 or under Article 141. Support is also taken from judgments reported at SubCommittee of Judicial Accountability .vrs. Union of India and others, 1992 4 SCC 97 Narinder Singh .vrs. Surjit Singh, 1984 AIR(SC) 1359 Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another .vrs. State of Maharashtra and an other, 2005 2 SCC 673 to show how the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court need to be approached, appreciated and applied.