Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ajinkya S/o Rajiv Khadatkar, filed a writ petition challenging communications dated 29 March 2017 and 18 April 2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.) directing him to submit a caste validity certificate, failing which his services would be terminated. The petitioner's father was employed as an Assistant Lineman with respondent No.2 and died on 20 September 2003 due to ill health. On his death, the petitioner's mother was appointed temporarily but later relinquished her appointment in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and was appointed as Junior Office Assistant on a temporary basis by order dated 19 July 2014. Subsequently, by order dated 26 February 2016, he was declared a permanent employee. The impugned communications demanded a caste validity certificate on the ground that his appointment was under the scheduled tribe category. The petitioner argued, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Pramod Shivaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, that since his appointment was purely on compassionate grounds and not under any reserved category, the demand was illegal. The respondents supported the demand but placed no material to show that the appointment was for a reserved post. The court, upon perusal of records, found that the appointment was purely on compassionate grounds and not under any reserved category. Consequently, the court held that the respondents were not justified in demanding a caste validity certificate. The court quashed the impugned communications and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner's services without insisting on the certificate. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Caste Validity Certificate - The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground after his father's death in harness. The respondent demanded a caste validity certificate threatening termination. The court held that since the appointment was purely on compassionate ground and not under any reserved category, the demand for caste validity certificate was unjustified. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent could demand a caste validity certificate from the petitioner when his appointment was made purely on compassionate grounds and not under any reserved category.
Final Decision
The impugned communications dated 29 March 2017 and 18 April 2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner's services without insisting on the caste validity certificate. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment not under reserved category
- Caste validity certificate cannot be demanded
- Appointment on compassionate ground is distinct from reservation
