IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13520 of 2003 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA ================================================================ Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13520 of 2003 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA ================================================================ Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ================================================================ DHANANJAY B. WAGHU....Petitioner(s) Versus BANK OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR HEMANG M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR CHUDGAR, ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 06/05/2016
1. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to quash and set aside the order dated 26.5.2003, whereby, the petitioner is dismissed from services on the ground of having been appointed under Scheduled Tribe category which was, as per the case of respondent Bank, mis-leading.
2. After extensive hearing on the matter, it is noticed that the entire controversy of Halba Koshti / Halbi Koshti was subject matter of various litigations right from 1980. The same culminated in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind reported in AIR 2001 SC 393. On perusal of the said judgment, it will clarify that various litigations were going on in the Courts. Different relaxation and regulations were also passed which were subject matter of challenge before the different Courts for the declaration of Halba Koshti / Halbi Koshti - Scheduled Tribe / Scheduled Caste.
3. It deserves to be noted that in the application dated 13.7.1996, the petitioner in the column Do you belong to a Scheduled Tribe, has stated Yes. In the column Date and place of Birth and Religion, he has stated Hindu Halba. In the list of enclosures of the said application, the petitioner has enclosed (1) mark sheet SSC (2) School Leaving Certificate and (3) Caste Certificate. Perusal of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner dated 25.2.1978 will clarify that Caste Halba is certified as Scheduled Tribe, whereas, this School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner in the 2nd column of caste sub caste, it is stated as Halba Koshti.
4. The close scrutiny of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Milind (Supra), category will clarify that Halba belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, whereas, Halba Koshti belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Thus, the petitioner was having the documents showing him as Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidate.
5. After noticing the aforesaid discrepancy, the respondent Bank authorities has referred the case of the petitioner to Scrutiny Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Nagpur. The said committee vide order dated 4.11.1999 concluded that the caste certificate of the petitioner belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe granted by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur vide RC No.715/MRC- 81/77-78 dated 28.2.1978 was cancelled. It deserves to be noted that the scrutiny committee has also observed that the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 29.12.1997, 4.4.1998 and again on 11.10.1999. Thereafter, letters dated 10.12.1997, 8.2.1998, 10.8.1998, 13.9.1998 respectively were also issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. It is noted by the Committee in said order that all the time, the petitioner remained absent for the hearing. The Scrutiny Committee has relied on the police report indicating that the petitioner does not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe community. The caste of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as Koshti in School admission register issued by the Maharashtra Shikshan Mandal, Bhadra, Ahmedabad.
6. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, in Para E, he has stated upon receipt of notices or letters issued by the Committee, he had addressed letters to the Committee requesting them to grant adjournment as he was collecting evidence which were required to be reproduced before the Committee.
7. This Court has asked learned advocate Mr. Shah to produce any letters in support of the said contention. Today, the petitioner is present in the Court. He says that he has no letters to substantiate his claim. At this stage, Mr. Shah, learned advocate, upon instructions of his client, states that it would suffice if the respondent authorities are requested to reexamine his case, they may refer his case to the scrutiny committee after hearing him and examining all the necessary documents, concerned authorities may pass appropriate orders. He has relied upon the Office Memorandum bearing Reference No.HR/R/SCT/2012-13/15 dated 9.4.2012 issued by the respondent Bank, pursuant to Apex Court, the judgment in the case of Milind (Supra).
8. In my view, at this stage, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of Office Memorandum bearing Reference No.HR/R/SCT/2012-13/15 dated 9.4.2012, and it is further directed that the respondent - Bank may appropriately refer the case of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee. More particularly, as per Para 5(A)(iv), in my view, the case will fall in that clause and a fresh certificate is required to be obtained by the petitioner from the competent authority whose Scheduled Tribe (ST) Certificate / Claims. Para 5(B) clearly stipulates that the fresh certificate of belonging to Halba Koshti / Halbi Koshti / Koshti Caste submitted by the concerned employee under Para (A) above will be verified through the competent authorities. The service protection available under above cited Government Directives will be provided to the concerned employees only on receipt of satisfactory verification report from competent authorities. Similarly, the pending disciplinary action cases / court cases relating to invalidation of ST Claims will be dropped on receipt of satisfactory verification of fresh caste certificate submitted by the concerned employee.
9. In my view, the question of the petitioner squarely covers under the Office Memorandum bearing Reference No.HR/R/SCT/2012-13/15 dated 9.4.2012 issued by the Bank. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall approach the respondent Bank for initiating the proceedings under the aforesaid memorandum. If need arises, he may also apply to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the fresh caste certificate. Upon issuance of fresh Caste Certificate, the respondent Bank is directed to examine the case as per the Office Memorandum bearing Reference No.HR/R/SCT/2012-13/15 dated 9.4.2012 and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. If it is found that the petitioner satisfies the requirement of Caste Certificate, the Respondent Bank has to consider his case for reinstatement and grant of consequential benefits. This petition is allowed in afore-stated terms. Rule is made absolute to that extent. (A. S. SUPEHIA, J.) * Vatsal
Comments