Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from a batch of writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, wherein petitioners sought protection in service after their claims of belonging to Scheduled Tribes were invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The leading petition, Writ Petition No. 3373 of 2002, concerned a petitioner who had been appointed in the State Bank of India in 1985 against a reserved post for Scheduled Tribes and had completed over 32 years of service. His claim of belonging to the 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26 November 2001. The petitioner's earlier writ petition challenging the invalidation was dismissed on 30 September 2003, and that decision attained finality. In the current petition, the petitioner sought only the limited relief of protection in service, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, State of Maharashtra v. Om Raj, (2007) 14 SCC 488, and the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra, 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457. While the petition was pending, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 6 July 2017 in Chairman and Managing Director FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (Civil Appeal No. 8928 of 2015), which expressly overruled the Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone. Consequently, the protection that had been available under the Full Bench ruling was no longer available. Taking note of this development, the High Court, on its own motion and after issuing advance notice to the Bar, directed the Registry to list all similar matters pending before the Bench up to the year 2010 in which protection was claimed. Approximately 150 matters were listed. The court heard arguments from counsel appearing in several petitions, including Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar, and the matter was reserved for judgment. The court's order, as recorded, did not finally dispose of the petitions but set out the background and the need to consider the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision on the pending claims. The key legal issue for determination was whether the petitioners could still claim protection in service after the overruling of Arun Sonone. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decision was binding and had effectively removed the foundation for the relief sought. The judgment thus primarily dealt with procedural aspects and the listing of cases, and the substantive decision on protection was yet to be pronounced. The text of the judgment as provided is incomplete and does not contain the final operative directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Caste Certificate Invalidation - Protection in Service - Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira overruled the Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone, thereby removing the basis for protection in service upon invalidation of caste claims; court directed listing of similar matters and heard arguments to determine the effect on pending petitions (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether protection in service can be granted after invalidation of a Scheduled Tribe claim when the Supreme Court has overruled the Full Bench decision that previously allowed such protection.
Law Points
- protection in service
- invalidation of caste claim
- binding nature of Supreme Court precedents
- overruling of Full Bench decision
- impact on pending writ petitions
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 147
Writ Petition No. 3373 of 2002 (along with WP Nos. 3213/2000, 81/2002, 283/2002, 665/2002, 666/2002, 667/2002, 2024/2002, 4011/2002, 4252/2002, 4754/2002, 5535/2004)
R.K. Deshpande, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
P.K. Dhomne, S.M. Ukey, S.N. Kumar, Anil Mardikar, S.G. Joshi, V.G. Wankhede, N.S. Rao, V.P. Maldhure, A.D. Mohgaonkar, N.R. Pathrabe, R.E. Moharir, N. Phadnis, Geeta Tiwari, R.S. Charpe, C.V. Kale
Dattakishor Jagannath Kumbhare (Petitioner in WP 3373/2002) and others
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking protection in service after the petitioner's claim of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought the limited relief of protection in service despite the invalidation of his caste claim, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Milind, Om Raj, and the Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's claim of belonging to 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26-11-2001, and his earlier writ petition challenging the invalidation was dismissed on 30-09-2003.
Previous Decisions
The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim on 26-11-2001. Writ Petition No. 3314 of 2002 was dismissed on 30-09-2003 and attained finality. The Full Bench in Arun Sonone provided protection, which was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira on 06-07-2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection in service after invalidation of his Scheduled Tribe claim, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira overruling the Full Bench in Arun Sonone.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that protection in service should be granted based on the principles laid down in Milind, Om Raj, and Arun Sonone.
The respondents were likely to rely on the Supreme Court's overruling of Arun Sonone to resist the grant of protection.
Detailed arguments were not fully recorded as the judgment text is incomplete.
Judgment Excerpts
Recently, the Apex Court, in its decision rendered on 6-7-2017 in Civil Appeal No.8928 of 2015 [Chairman and Managing Director FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others], has overruled the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Arun Sonone's case, as a result of which, the protection provided by the decision of the Full Bench has become unavailable.
The claim of the petitioner was that he belongs to 'Halba/Halbi', Scheduled Tribe category. His claim was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 26-11-2001.
By this petition, the limited relief of protection in service is claimed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, ('Milind's case'); State of Maharashtra v. Om Raj, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 488; and Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 300, delivered by the Apex Court; and the decision of the Full Bench delivered by this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed in the State Bank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 09-1985 against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He was confirmed on 03-1986 and promoted to Assistant Manager on 18-1987. His claim of belonging to 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26-11-2001. He filed Writ Petition No. 3314 of 2002 challenging the invalidation, which was dismissed on 30-09-2003 and attained finality. The present Writ Petition No. 3373 of 2002 was filed seeking limited relief of protection in service. After the Supreme Court's decision in FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira on 06-07-2017 overruling the Full Bench in Arun Sonone, the High Court directed the Registry to list all similar matters and heard arguments on 17-07-2017.
