Manjusha Haribhau Dhapudkar vs President and Principal

Anoop V. Mohta, J.—RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The petitioner was appointed on 14.07.1999 as Lecturer by respondent no. 1 against the vacancy earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe as the petitioner belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe.

This Court has on 19.03.2011 directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur to decide the caste claim and also directed not to disturb the services of the petitioner. The petition was dismissed on preliminary ground of qualification of Research Official but, not on merits. The petitioner, therefore, preferred M.C.A. (Review) of the said judgment. The said miscellaneous civil application was disposed of on 17.10.2012, however, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition for the purpose of protection of service. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition on 20.10.2012 and prayed for protection of service in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2012 AIR SCW 4472 Kavita Solunke Versus State of Maharashtra and other judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. This Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta & Z.A. Haq, JJ.) also in the case of Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha in Writ Petition No. 5530/2012 & others, dated 10.07.2013, on same line, taking note of the above referred judgments and also other judgments of this Court granted protection to the similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner and passed an order including the order of reinstatement on certain terms and conditions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being similarly placed employee is entitled for the same relief subject to the conditions as ordered.

After considering the objections as well as submissions so raised, issues like Res-Judicata, delay and rejection of earlier petition, this Court granted protection and restrictive benefits on the principle of parity and equality, specially in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner, on instructions makes a statement that the petitioner will file an undertaking within two weeks and will not claim any benefits available to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The submission that the petitioner was not confirmed prior to 28.11.2000 is also opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vimal Murlidhar Kumbhare & others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1070/06) dated 30.1.2009, which we have noted in judgment in Writ Petition No. 48/2002 dated 12.08.2013. In the facts and circumstances, following order is passed.

i. The writ petition is partly allowed with liberty to both the parties. The petitioner is entitled for protection of service.

ii. The termination order dated 20.09.2010 is quashed and set aside.

iii. The petitioner, therefore, would not be entitled to any further caste benefits and if the benefits are granted to the petitioner after 28.11.2000, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same.

iv. The petitioner to submit the existing caste certificate to complete the formalities of service record preferably within nine months and as early as possible.

v. Both the parties to act on the same and cooperate accordingly in accordance with law.

vi. The petitioner to file undertaking within three weeks.

vii. The respondents are at liberty to take action in case of fraud and/or representation, if any, in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.