CHARANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the nature of controversy, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission itself with the consent of Mrs. Maldhure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Mokadam, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. As per orders of this Court dated 29.3.2007, Shri Kothari, learned AGI? appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 has today produced a copy of order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Caste Verification Committee in the matter of Shri Sanjay Dhait. The Caste Verification Committee has found that he does not belong to VJ(A) category and his claim as candidate belonging to caste Wanjari which is included as NT (D) has been upheld. It is not in dispute that post in employment of Respondent No. 4 against which Shri Sanjay Dhait was initially appointed was reserved for VJ(A) category and the petitioner belongs to that caste. The petitioner also has produced a certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in his favour to substantiate his stand.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 had provided employment to Sanjay Dhait because of his claim that he belonged to VJ(A) category sometime before 1.7.2004. His exact date of appointment is not placed on record either by the petitioner or by Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4, however, has mentioned that Shri Sanjay Dhait was terminated on 7.12.2004 after his certificate was earlier invalidated by the Caste Verification Committee. It is also not in dispute that the Caste Verification Committee issued certificate to Shri Sanjay Dhait holding that he belongs to NT (D) category and therefore Respondent No. 4 found that he could not have been appointed against reserved post on which he was appointed and therefore terminated him. The select list in this respect was published on 30.9.2003 and the petitioner was also informed of his selection by Respondent No. 4 vide communication of even date informing him that he should produce a caste validity certificate within a period of three months. The petitioner thereafter got validity certificate on 28.11.2003 but as already mentioned above, it appears that as Shri Sanjay Dhait was appointed, he made a representation on 1.7.2004 for employment in place of Sanjay Dhait.

(3.) SHRI Kothari, learned AGP appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 adopts the arguments of learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4.