Writ Petition No.1302 of 1992

10th September, 2004

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. RAJEEV MADKHOLKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. KILLOR,Mrs. S. W. DESHPANDE

Cases Cited:
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, 2001(1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.)=2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1 [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

P. S. BRAHME, J. :- Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the order dated 14th August, 1989 passed by the respondent no.2 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9th May, 1986 passed by the respondent No.3 - Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Halba-Scheduled Tribe community. This Court, on 19th October, 1992, issued Rule making it returnable early.

3. After filing of the present petition, the petitioner, by communication dated 19-9-1995, issued by Maharashtra Public Service Commission, was informed that he has been selected for being appointed to the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department. By the communication dated 25-4-1996 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Higher & Technical Education Department, the petitioner was informed to join on the post of Lecturer at Government Engineering College, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. On 20-5-1996, the petitioner joined on the post of Lecturer in Government Engineering College, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. After joining services, which was, initially, on probation period of two years, the petitioner submitted all his documents to the Principal of the College on 1-7-1998. Again on 1-2-1999, the petitioner submitted all certificates relating to his caste as well as education to the Principal, Government Engineering College, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, issued order dated 8th April, 1999, stating therein that the petitioner's work during the probation period of two years was satisfactory, and continued his services. Therefore, the petitioner amended the petition thereby incorporated the subsequent events and the prayer clause (b-1) as under :

"that, in view of Annexures E to I, it be declared that petitioner's services on the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department shall be continued in respondent no.4 - College and his services shall not be terminated on the ground that his caste claim has been invalidated by respondent no.3 to the petition after recording the undertaking from the petitioner that in future neither he nor his spouse shall claim any benefit available to a scheduled tribe candidate."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, the third respondent has recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to Halba-Scheduled Tribe and he belongs to Koshti caste. He further submitted that the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department, has issued a resolution dated 24th July, 1998, which is a corrigendum to the Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995, under which caste Koshti was declared as belonging to Special Backward Class. It is submitted that the Government Resolution dated 24th July, 1998 gives protection to the persons under the category of Special Backward Classes to the effect that they shall not be removed from the service. The learned counsel submitted that this Court in Writ Petition No.1186 of 2002, which was filed by one Prakash Vithalrao Sonkusre, decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7th November, 2003, observed that the claim of the petitioner therein belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated and he has been declared belonging to Koshti Caste and in view of Government Resolution dated 13-6-1995 as well as Government Resolution dated 15-3-2000, the petitioner therein was entitled to be protected from termination of his services in view of the aforesaid resolutions. The learned counsel submitted that since the caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Halba-Scheduled Tribe is invalidated, the petitioner or any other close family members of the petitioner, shall not claim status of a person belonging to Halba, i.e. belonging to Scheduled Tribe, in future. It is submitted by the learned counsel that this Court, in the case of Prakash Sonkusre, while allowing the petition, directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 therein, not to terminate the petitioner therein on the ground that the claim of the petitioner therein, i.e. belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe was invalidated. It is submitted that the present petitioner is also situated in the same circumstances as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1186 of 2002 was situated and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 7th November, 2003, is applicable to the petitioner and as such the service of the petitioner be protected.

5. In the case on hand, the factual position is not controverted. It is admitted that the petitioner joined as Lecturer in respondent No.4-Engineering College on 20-5-1996 and that he has completed the probation period on 10-7-1998. He was continued in service since 11-7-1998. It is not disputed that the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated by the respondent nos.2 and 3 holding that he does not belong to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has given undertaking in the petition that in the eventuality of protection granted to him by virtue of Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 and 15-3-2000, in future, he or his spouse shall not claim any benefit available to a Scheduled Tribe candidate.

6. Mrs. Deshpande, the leaned counsel for the respondent no.3, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & others (2001(1) Maharashtra Law Journal page 1 : [2001(1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.)]), submitted that since the petitioner came to be appointed subsequent to the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995, he is not entitled to the protection and as such his services cannot be protected. The leaned counsel gave emphasis on the observations of the apex Court in the said Judgment, which are reproduced below :-

"No doubt, it is true, the stand of the appellant as to controversy relating to "Halba-Koshti" has been varying from time to time but in the view we have taken on question No.1, the circulars/resolutions/instructions issued by the State Government from time to time, some time contrary to the instructions issued by the Central Government, are of no consequence."

It is very difficult to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, as, in the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995, at Sr. No.3, Koshti and Halba-Koshti castes are mentioned. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his caste claim has been invalidated by the respondent no.2. It is also not disputed that initially the petitioner claimed that he belonged to Halba-Scheduled tribe which claim is ultimately invalidated by the respondent nos.2 and 3. As stated earlier, in the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 at Sr. No.3, Koshti and Halba-Koshti is mentioned. Therefore, this Government Resolution is equally applicable so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned and his services can be protected. In addition to that, Government Resolution No.BCC-1394/PK/68/94/16-B dated 15th March, 2000 gives protection to the persons who are appointed as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community prior to 24-7-1998, in Government service, provided that these persons should be from Special Backward Category/class and had been appointed as a member of Scheduled Tribe community. Therefore, if the Government Resolution dated 15-3-2000 is conjointly read with earlier Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the person belonging to "Koshti" like the present petitioner, who was claiming to be belonging to "Halba" and is appointed prior to 24-6-1998, is entitled for protection from removal from service. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 resorting to Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995 is misconceived. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent no.3.

7. In view of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.1186 of 2002, the petitioner, being similarly situated, is entitled to be protected from termination of his services on the ground that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have invalidated his caste claim. However, since the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated, which is accepted by the petitioner, the petitioner or any other close family member of the petitioner, shall not be entitled to claim a status of persons belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, in future. The petitioner has already given undertaking to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for as regards the protection of his services. As such the petition is allowed in terms of the following orders:

The respondent nos.1 and 4 are directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's caste claim i.e. petitioner belongs to Halba-Scheduled Tribe is invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, on the condition that the petitioner or any other close family member of the petitioner, shall not be entitled to claim a status of person belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, in future, in terms of the undertaking given by the petitioner.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.