SUBHASHCHANDRA TULSHIRAM SAHU Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER AND VICEC CHAIRMAN, SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITEE NAGPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks the protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 AIR(SC) 3016 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 1 MhLJ 457.

(2.) The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the year 1978 as a Clerk in the respondent-bank, on a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claimed to belong to Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. The respondent-bank asked the petitioner to submit his caste validity certificate but the petitioner neither furnished his caste certificate nor did he tender the caste validity certificate to the respondent-bank and hence the respondent-bank, after conducting an enquiry against the petitioner, terminated his services in the year 2002. The petitioner challenged the order of termination before the CGIT but did not succeed. A writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of CGIT was also dismissed. The petitioner submitted the caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for verification in the year 2008 and the Scrutiny Committee, by the order dated 23.09.2010 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. It was held by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner appears to be Teli by caste and not Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee but the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a review application seeking a review of the order in Writ Petition. While disposing of the review application, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition seeking the protection of his services on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others . The present petition has been filed in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Narnaware, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others and the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others as the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date i.e. in the year 1978 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for the Bhunjia-Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as in certain documents of the cousins of the petitioner, the caste was recorded as Teli in the caste column. It is stated that both the conditions that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection in terms of the judgment of the full bench stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner.