Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Archana Bayaskar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with the Zilla Parishad on 26 September 1992, claiming to belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On 5 October 2000, her services were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer on the ground that she failed to produce a caste validity certificate. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The court considered the law laid down by the Full Bench in Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) and the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (2001). The petitioner's counsel argued that since her appointment was prior to the Milind judgment, she was entitled to protection in service. The court agreed, noting that the appointment was made on 26 September 1992, which is prior to the Milind decision. The court set aside the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages. The judgment emphasizes that employees appointed before the cut-off date (2000) are protected even if their caste claims are later invalidated.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim - Protection of Service - Appointment prior to Milind judgment - Petitioner appointed on 26-09-1992 as Assistant Teacher claiming Thakur Scheduled Tribe status - Services terminated on 05-10-2000 for failure to produce caste validity - Court held that as per Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone and Apex Court in Milind, appointments made prior to 2000 are entitled to protection - Held that termination order set aside and petitioner entitled to continuity of service (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a teacher appointed prior to the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind is entitled to protection of service despite her caste claim being invalidated.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 5 October 2000 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Protection of service for appointments made prior to Milind judgment
- Caste claim invalidity does not automatically terminate service if appointment was prior to 2000
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (05) 63
WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2000
Shri N.R. Pathrabe for petitioner, Smt. H.N. Prabhu A.G.P. for respondent No.1
Archana d/o Shankarrao Bayaskar
State of Maharashtra, Chairman of Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Akola, Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Akola, Head Master Zilla Parishad Primary Marathi School Chandur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging termination of service due to failure to produce caste validity certificate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination order and reinstatement with continuity of service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated on 5 October 2000 for not producing a caste validity certificate, despite her appointment in 1992.
Previous Decisions
Termination order dated 5 October 2000 by respondent No.3.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of service despite invalidation of her caste claim, given her appointment was prior to the Milind judgment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that as per Arun Sonone and Milind, appointments made prior to 2000 are entitled to protection.
Respondent disputed the claim for want of validity.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee appointed prior to the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind is entitled to protection of service even if the caste claim is later invalidated, as per the Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone.
Judgment Excerpts
Based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1, Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the appointment of the petitioner is prior to 2000, the petitioner is entitled for protection in service.
In our opinion, a case for grant of protection of service is made out, particularly when the fact is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner is made on 29061992 i.e. prior to the judgment of the Milind Katware (cited supra).
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed on 26-09-1992. Services terminated on 05-10-2000. Writ petition filed in 2000. Heard on 08-05-2017 and allowed.
Acts & Sections
