Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manjusha Haribhau Dhapudkar, was appointed as a Lecturer on 14.07.1999 by respondent no.1 against a vacancy earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe, as she belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. On 19.03.2011, the High Court directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur to decide her caste claim and also directed not to disturb her services. However, the petition was dismissed on the preliminary ground of qualification of the Research Official, not on merits. The petitioner then filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application (Review), which was disposed of on 17.10.2012, granting liberty to file a fresh petition for protection of service. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 20.10.2012, seeking protection of service in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and other judgments. The court noted that it had earlier, in the case of Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha and others, granted protection and reinstatement to similarly placed persons. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, being similarly placed, is entitled to the same relief subject to conditions. After considering objections regarding res judicata, delay, and rejection of the earlier petition, the court granted protection and restrictive benefits on the principle of parity and equality, especially in view of the Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner's counsel made a statement on instructions that the petitioner will file an undertaking within two weeks that she will not claim any benefits available to persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to protect the petitioner's service and not to disturb her services until the caste scrutiny committee decides her caste claim, subject to the undertaking.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Caste Scrutiny - Protection of Service - Pending verification of caste claim, the court granted protection of service to the petitioner, a lecturer appointed against a Scheduled Tribe vacancy, on the principle of parity with similarly placed employees who were granted similar relief by the same court. The court rejected objections of res judicata and delay, noting that the earlier petition was dismissed on a preliminary ground and not on merits. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Caste Scrutiny - Undertaking - The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking within two weeks that she will not claim any benefits available to persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, as a condition for protection of service. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, whose earlier petition was dismissed on preliminary ground, is entitled to protection of service pending caste scrutiny on the principle of parity with similarly placed employees.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to protect the service of the petitioner and not to disturb her services until the caste scrutiny committee decides her caste claim, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within two weeks that she will not claim any benefits available to persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
Law Points
- Protection of service pending caste scrutiny
- principle of parity
- res judicata
- delay
- undertaking not to claim ST benefits
