Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
Rakesh Sukanuji Dafade & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Environment Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2004, 7973, 7974, 7975, 10286, 1702, 3187, 10569, 8104, 2120, 7976, 8787, 9540 of 2013 & 2043, 1198 of 2014 & 11154 of 2011
Decided On: 04-04-2014
Caste Certificates - Protection in Service - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) - [Koli] - [Protection in Service] - [Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001] - The Petitioners/candidates/employees are entitled for protection in service with continuity of service. The Petitioners would not be entitled to any caste benefits on the basis of earlier caste/tribe which they had claimed. However, the Petitioners/candidates are entitled for the benefits, if any, based upon the concluded/existing caste/ tribe in question (Koli SBC) (Koshti SBC). The benefits, if any, granted after 28.11.2000 being belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”, “Halba” (ST), the Respondents/employer/management are at liberty to withdraw the same. The Petitioners/employees/candidates to submit the present caste certificates to complete the formality of service record as soon as possible and preferably within six months. All the parties to cooperate accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly in all the Petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners were appointed and confirmed prior to 28.11.2000, based upon the Caste Certificates. The respective caste claim/certificate was rejected by the concerned Scrutiny Committees, based upon the then prevailing procedures/circulars and thereby invalidated their caste certificates. The Petitioners sought protection of their service/employment/career and were willing to give up their caste benefits on the basis of original certificates except the continuity of service. The court proceeded to pass a common order in the interest of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioners were entitled to protection in service with continuity of service, but not entitled to any caste benefits on the basis of their earlier caste/tribe claims. The court allowed the benefits, if any, based upon the concluded/existing caste/tribe in question (Koli SBC) (Koshti SBC). The court also allowed the withdrawal of benefits granted after 28.11.2000 belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”, “Halba” (ST) and directed the Petitioners to submit the present caste certificates to complete the formality of service record within six months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the Petitioners' caste certificates by the concerned Scrutiny Committees, the entitlement to protection in service, and the withdrawal of caste benefits granted after 28.11.2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) and the Supreme Court judgments, which allowed protection in service with continuity of service but not further caste privileges.
Final Decision: The court granted protection in service with continuity of service to the Petitioners, while disallowing any caste benefits on the basis of their earlier caste/tribe claims. The court also allowed the withdrawal of benefits granted after 28.11.2000 belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”, “Halba” (ST) and directed the Petitioners to submit the present caste certificates to complete the formality of service record within six months.
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of all the parties along with other connected matters. Therefore, this common judgment as the issues are similar, so also referred judgments and the law.
2. In the present matters, the caste in question does not fall within the ambit of “Scheduled Tribe” and/or “Scheduled Tribe”, but it does fall within the ambit of “Special Backward Class (SBC)/OBC” i.e. “Mahadeo Koli”, “Koli” and “Koli M”. In all the matters, the Petitioners were appointed and confirmed prior to 28.11.2000, based upon the Caste Certificates. The Petitioners got all the benefits as belonging to the class “Mahadeo Koli”/Koshti SBC/Koli SBC. The respective caste claim/certificate was rejected by the concerned Scrutiny Committees, based upon the then prevailing procedures/circulars and thereby invalidated their caste certificates. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) (for short, the Act) w.e.f. 18 October 2001, provides the statutory procedure and mechanism to deal with such cases.
3. In all the matters, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, based upon the averments and/or on instructions, made a statement that they are restricting their claim and praying only for protection of their service/employment/career. They want to accept the decision so given by the Scrutiny Committee declaring their castes. The submission, therefore, is made to continue their services/employment and as they are entitled for the protection of services/employment. They are also willing to give up their caste benefits on the basis of original certificates except the continuity of service. They have also expressed their willingness to give up all the benefits, privileges granted after 28.11.2000. By accepting these statements, we are proceeding to pass this common order in the interest of justice.
4. The claims revolving around the word/s “Koli”/”Hindu Koli”/ “Mahadeo Koli”/”Koli M.”. The confusion and the situation prevailing for many years and so also admission and the appointment based upon it. They tried, but were unable to prove the caste that itself does not mean that they have committed any illegality in claiming the same. In view of above nomenclatures, it cannot be stated that the Petitioners have committed any fraud and/or misrepresentation. Their services, cannot be disturbed because of the impugned orders. The Petitioners, however, are required to get the certificate of their existing caste to submit the same for the service record and/or for future purposes. Therefore, in view of the Supreme Court decisions as referred above and as the Petitioners are similarly placed, though caste is different, but the principle as laid down are quite applicable, the protection in service and/or continuity in service and/or reinstatement, without providing them benefits and/or in a given case, permitting the employer to withdraw the benefits would strike the balance.
5. The various Courts, based upon the Supreme Court judgments and the judgments of the High Courts, granted the protection but not further privileges in view of following directions in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.(2001) 1 SCC 4)
“..... But we make it clear he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.16372/85 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.”
(emphasis added).
6. There are judgments of the Supreme Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
