Writ Petition No.3247 of 2007

16th January, 2017.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri H.V. THAKUR
Respondent Counsel: Shri A.S. FULZELE

JUDGMENT

SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. :- By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 20.3.2007 directing that the proceedings be launched against the petitioner for falsely claiming the benefits meant for Banjara Vimukta Jati (A). The petitioner also challenges the action on the part of the respondent-employer of proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner, in view of the invalidation of his caste claim.

2. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Banjara caste that is included in the Vimukta Jatis. In pursuance of the advertisement, published by the respondent no.1, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon, that was earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes on 2.11.1993. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee held that the caste of the petitioner was not Banjara but the same was Vanjari. The Scrutiny Committee further held that as the petitioner belongs to Vanjari caste, which falls in the Nomadic Tribes and as the petitioner had sought the employment by claiming that he belongs to Banjara caste, which falls in the Vimukta Jatis, an action be initiated against the petitioner for falsely claiming the benefits meant for the Banjara caste. On the basis of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the respondent no.1 - Government Ayurved Rugnalaya served the notice of proposed termination on the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the part of the order of the Scrutiny Committee that directs an enquiry against the petitioner and the order of the respondent no.1 - Government Ayurved Rugnalaya, threatening to terminate the services of the petitioner.

3. Shri Thakur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes and at the relevant time, Banjara was included in the Vimukta Jatis and so was Vanjari. It is submitted that by a Government Resolution, dated 18.8.1992, it was clarified that Banjara and Vanjari castes were similar and they were entitled to the benefits meant for the Vimukta Jatis. It is stated that a Resolution was passed on 23.3.1994 by the State Government including Vanjari caste in the list of Nomadic Tribes. It is submitted that since the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for either Vimukta Jatis or Nomadic Tribes, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated merely because the Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner belongs to Vanjari caste, that is included in the Nomadic Tribes. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Banjara caste is invalidated as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents. It is stated that even if the petitioner belongs to Vanjari caste, the petitioner would be entitled to protection of his services as the post on which the petitioner was appointed was not earmarked only for the Vimukta Jatis but was earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes also. It is stated that Vanjari caste to which the petitioner is declared to belong to, was included in the Vimukta Jatis between the period from 18.8.1992 till 23.3.1994 and since the petitioner was appointed on 2.11.1993, it cannot be said that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant either for the Vimukta Jatis or Nomadic Tribes while seeking the employment.

4. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents does not dispute that the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes. The issuance of the Government Resolutions, dated 18.8.1992 and 23.3.1994 are further not disputed. It is submitted that since initially the petitioner claimed to belong to Banjara caste and since his caste claim is invalidated, the respondent has rightly taken a decision of terminating the services of the petitioner. It is, however, fairly admitted that at the relevant time, both Banjara and Vanjari castes were included in the lists of Vimukta Jatis and after 23.3.1994, Vanjari caste is included in the list of Nomadic Tribes.

5. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the Scrutiny Committee so far as it directs an enquiry against the petitioner and the order of proposed termination are liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes. Banjara and Vanjari castes were included in the Vimukta Jatis between the period from 18.8.1992 and 23.3.1994 and the benefits meant for the Vimukta Jatis were made available even for Vanjari caste during the said period. Though the petitioner had claimed to belong to Banjara caste and the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated as the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes. Even assuming that it was earmarked only for the Vimukta Jatis, still the services of the petitioner are required to be protected as on 2.11.1993, Vanjari caste was included in the Vimukta Jatis. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Vimukta Jatis and though his claim of belonging to Banjara caste is invalidated, his services need to be protected as the Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner belongs to Vanjari caste, which is included in the list of Nomadic Tribes. Since the post on which the petitioner was appointed is earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis/Nomadic Tribes, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. The order of the Scrutiny Committee, so far as it directs an enquiry against the petitioner, is liable to be set aside as the caste claim of the petitioner is not invalidated because the petitioner has played any fraud on the Committee or on his employer, but the same is invalidated as the petitioner could not prove his claim on the basis of the documents. The claim of the petitioner of belonging to Banjara caste is invalidated as in some of the documents, the caste of the relatives of the petitioner is recorded as Vanjari.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Scrutiny Committee, so far as it directs an enquiry against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The order of the respondent no.1-Government Ayurved Rugnalaya, threatening to terminate services of the petitioner is also quashed and set aside.

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

Petition allowed.