Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Harshalata Sudhakarrao Dhawale, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15th March 2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, which communicated that her services cannot be protected under Section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Government decision dated 24.6.2004. The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Dhangar' caste. The Government of Maharashtra had issued resolutions changing the social status of 'Dhangar' to 'Dhanawar'. The court examined the facts and the impugned order. The court found that the petitioner's caste claim was not valid and therefore the protection of services was not warranted. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The court held that the roster must be prepared accordingly, meaning the petitioner cannot continue in the post reserved for backward classes.
Headnote
A) Caste Certificate Verification - Protection of Services - Section 10(1) Maharashtra SC, ST, DNT, OBC Act, 2000 - Government Resolution dated 24.6.2004 - The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Dhangar' caste but the caste certificate was found invalid after verification. The Divisional Commissioner directed that her services cannot be protected and roster be prepared accordingly. The court upheld the order, holding that protection of services is not automatic and depends on validity of caste claim. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the services of the petitioner can be protected under Section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Government decision dated 24.6.2004 when her caste claim as 'Dhangar' was found invalid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15th March 2013 is upheld. The roster shall be prepared accordingly.
Law Points
- Caste certificate verification
- Protection of services pending verification
- Section 10(1) Maharashtra SC
- ST
- DNT
- OBC Act
- 2000
- Government Resolution dated 24.6.2004
- Roster preparation
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 142
WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2013
A.P. Bhangale, C.V. Bhadang
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, Sr. Cl. for the Petitioner; Mr.Nitin Rao, learned A.G.P for Respondent no.1; Mr.C.A.Joshi, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Harshalata Sudhakarrao Dhawale
The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati through its Backward Class Section, Commissionerate, Amravati; Bhartiya Shiksha Mandal, Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, through its Secretary; Bhartiya Dnyanpeeth High School and Junior College, Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, through its Headmaster; Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Divisional Commissioner regarding caste certificate verification and protection of services.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 15th March 2013 and direction to protect the petitioner's services.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's caste certificate was found invalid and her services were not protected under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Divisional Commissioner passed the impugned order on 15th March 2013.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 15th March 2013 is sustainable in law.
Whether the petitioner's services can be protected under Section 10(1) of the Act and Government decision dated 24.6.2004.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she belongs to 'Dhangar' caste and her services should be protected.
The respondents contended that the caste claim was invalid and protection of services is not automatic.
Ratio Decidendi
Protection of services under Section 10(1) of the Maharashtra SC, ST, DNT, OBC Act, 2000 is not automatic and depends on the validity of the caste claim. If the caste certificate is found invalid, the employee cannot claim protection of services.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has questioned sustainability of the impugned order, dated 15th March, 2013 passed by the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Camp whereby the Assistant Commissioner (Backward Class Section, Amravati) communicated that the services of the petitioner cannot be protected in view of Section 10 (1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and also under the Government decision, dt.24.6.2004.
The facts are that the petitioner claimed that she belonged to ‘Dhangar’ Caste.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 15th March 2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 26.8.2014, pronouncing it on 11.9.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000: Section 10(1)
