Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandrapal Ratansingh Rajput, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 31.03.2006 of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which invalidated his caste certificate claiming to belong to 'Rajput Bhamta' and recorded his caste as 'Rajput' in school records. The petitioner was employed with the Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, on instructions, conceded that the petitioner was single and there was no issue of future generations. Relying on the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath v. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457), the counsel restricted the case only to protection of service, specifically invoking clauses (i) and (v) of paragraph 75 of that judgment. Clause (i) states that mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment that had become final prior to the decision in Milind's case on 28.11.2000. Clause (v) states that claims of persons belonging to Nomadic Tribes, Vimukta Jatis, and Other Backward Class category shall be decided on the lines of the Supreme Court decision in R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K. Mahanudevan (2014 (4) SCC 434). The court, without entering into the merits of the caste claim, allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner's service be protected, and no recovery of benefits already availed be made. The court also clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to any further benefits based on the invalidated caste certificate.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Caste Certificate - Protection of Service - Invalidation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee does not automatically lead to withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment that became final prior to Milind's case (28.11.2000) - The petitioner, a single person with no future generations, sought only protection of service based on Full Bench judgment in Arun Vishwanath - Court granted protection of service without entering into merits of the caste claim (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's service should be protected despite the invalidation of his caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, in light of the Full Bench judgment in Arun Vishwanath.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is not interfered with on merits, but the petitioner's service is protected. No recovery of benefits already availed shall be made. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any further benefits based on the invalidated caste certificate.
Law Points
- Protection of service despite invalidation of caste claim
- Nomadic Tribes and Vimukta Jatis claim decided on lines of R. Unnikrishnan
- Mere invalidation does not entail withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment prior to Milind's case
