Writ Petition No. 2760 of 2002. Case: Manisha Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 2760 of 2002
Party Name:Manisha Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: S.R. Barlinge, Advocate and For Respondents: S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P.
Judges:R. M. Borde and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.
Issue:Service Law
Judgement Date:January 05, 2016
Court:Bombay High Court


R. M. Borde, J.

  1. The petitioner claims to belong to Tokre Koli, a Scheduled Tribe. The caste/tribe certificate, issued in her favour, was referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 30.10.2011, directed invalidation of caste/tribe certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

  2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, makes a statement that the petitioner would not claim any benefit on the basis of her status as belonging to Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe and is willing to give up her claim as a member belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has accepted judgment delivered by the Scrutiny Committee and does not want to pursue challenge to the said judgment. Petitioner also undertakes not to take any benefit as a member belonging to Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe, in the matter of employment or for securing any other benefits under any Government scheme or for educational purposes.

  3. In view of the oral undertaking given by the petitioner, objection to invalidation of caste claim of the petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee need not be gone into. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee stands confirmed.

  4. Petitioner is in the employment of Respondent No. 3 - Central Bank of India as a Clerk since 1993. The petitioner is seeking protection in the employment in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.

  5. In the matter of Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921, the Supreme Court has granted protection to the petitioner who was in employment and rendered service for not less than 10 years, even after order of invalidation of tribe certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. The protection was claimed on the basis of judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 1: (2001) 1 SCC 4. Petitioner - Kavita, before the Supreme Court, claimed benefits as a person belonging to Halba, Scheduled Tribe. While dealing with the issue as regards grant of protection, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 14 of the judgment, as below:

    "14 Reference may also be made to Punjab National Bank Vs. Vilas, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 805: (2008) 14 SCC 545. That too was a case of appointment based on a...

To continue reading