*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6750 OF 2022 Om s/o Bhagwanrao Anjanwad, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Service (Civil Engineering Assistant), R/o Drongiri Nagar, Near Nagar Palika Office, Hadgaon, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

...Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Maharashtra. Through it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.

...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6771 OF 2022 Shital d/o Govindrao Bainwad, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service (Supervisor, ICDS), R/o Datta Krupa Niwas, Behind Hanuman Mandir, Ganesh Nagar, Umri, Tq.Umri, Dist. Nanded.

...Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Maharashtra. Through it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

*2*

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.

3. District Program Officer (ICDS), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

...Respondents …

Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate assisted the Court.

Mr. P.S. Patil, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent No.1/State.

Mrs. Yogita S. Thorat, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3/Zilla Parishad.

...

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

Reserved on :- 07^th July, 2022 Pronounced on :- 22^nd July, 2022 JUDGMENT ( P er Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ) :-

1. In Writ Petition No.6771/2022, the Division Bench (coram : Chief Justice & Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) passed an order on 05.07.2022 as under: -

“1. Having heard Mr. Thorat, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1/State and Ms. Thorat, learned advocate for respondents 2 and 3/Zilla Parishad, we are of the view that the issue raised in this petition can be advantageously heard by a Bench of *3*

three judges.

2. Let the file be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.”

2. In view of the above, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Larger Bench and the writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.07.2022.

3. Writ Petition No.6750 of 2022 filed by the same advocate for the petitioner, was before the Division Bench on 06.07.2022. Considering the above order, the said petition was tagged along with Writ Petition No.6771 of 2022 and heard together on 07.07.2022.

4. In Writ Petition No.6750 of 2022, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause A as under: -

“A. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to not to insist to the petitioner, to submit the Tribe Validity Certificate, as his appointment is from the Compassionate Ground and not from the Scheduled Tribe category.”

5. In Writ Petition No.6771 of 2022, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause A as under: -

“A. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the respondent no.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to not to insist to the petitioner, to submit the Tribe Validity Certificate, as her *4*

appointment is from the Compassionate Ground and not from the Scheduled Tribe category.”

6. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel.

7. During the course of hearing in the matters, the issue arising for consideration of the Larger Bench has been formulated by us as under: -

“Whether, a compassionate appointee, is not required to submit a caste/tribe validity certificate when the parent had secured employment, on the basis of a caste/tribe certificate, on a post which was specifically reserved for a backward category and who did not submit a validity certificate until his/her demise while in service?”

8. The learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: -

a) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.

b) Balaji Sitaram More vs. The State of Maharashtra and oth