The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner appointed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates is entitled to continue in employment in terms of the earlier order of protection granted by the court, despite being placed on a supernumerary post.

Headnote:
Supernumerary Post - Employment Rights - The court held that the petitioner, who was appointed as an Accountant on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates and later placed on a supernumerary post, is entitled to continue in employment in terms of the earlier order of protection granted by the court.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, appointed as an Accountant on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, was placed on a supernumerary post by respondent No.2. The petitioner challenged the said order.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering similar cases, found that the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment in terms of the earlier order of protection granted by the court.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, who was appointed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates and later placed on a supernumerary post, is entitled to continue in employment.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the ratio of a previous decision, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief and set aside the order placing the petitioner on a supernumerary post.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order placing the petitioner on a supernumerary post and held that the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment in terms of the earlier order of protection granted by the court.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on the post reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. On invalidation of his tribe claim, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 5007/2015 raising challenge to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. By the judgment dated 30/11/2015, this Court protected the services of the petitioner subject to filing the requisite undertaking. The services of the petitioner were thereafter placed on a supernumerary post by respondent No.2 on 7/1/2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order.

3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is seen that the aforesaid factual position arising in similar Writ Petitions has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 375/2020 (Satish s/o Yashwant Ninave & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) decided on 3/8/2022. After noticing the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 903/2020 (Raja Tukarama Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) decided on 4/5/2021 with connected Writ Petitions, the order placing the Assistant Teachers on a supernumerary post was set aside and it was held that they are entitled to continue in service on the post held by them as Assistant Teacher.

4. We find that in the light of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner would be entitled to similar relief since he is similarly situated. Hence, following the ratio of the decision in Raja Tukaram Shinde (supra), the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, the following order is passed :

i. The order dated 7/1/2020 issued by respondent No.2 placing the petitioner on supernumerary post is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment in terms of the earlier order of protection granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5007/2015.

ii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document