KU.HEMA MADHUKAR SONIKAR v. STATE OF MAH THR ITS SECRETARY & 2 ORS.

The petitioner was appointed as a Ward Attendant in the General Hospital at Washim on 29.09.2003 on a post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes. The petitioner had claimed to belong to Lohar caste, that was included in the Other Backward Classes at the relevant time. Lohar caste/tribe was, however, placed in the list of Nomadic Tribes (B) by the Government Resolution, dated 01.03.2006. The claim of the petitioner of belonging to Lohar caste was validated by the scrutiny committee and the scrutiny committee held that the petitioner belongs to the NT (B) category. However, before the scrutiny committee decided the caste claim of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 29.03.2004. The scrutiny committee validated the caste claim of the petitioner on 23.03.2004. The order was received by the petitioner on 03.05.2006. The petitioner challenged the order of her termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application solely on the ground that on the date when the petitioner was appointed, Lohar caste was not included in the Nomadic Tribes and was included in Other Backward Classes and the petitioner had sought her appointment on the post meant for the Nomadic Tribes.

Shri Karode, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal ought to have allowed the original application filed by the petitioner. It is stated

2

that though on the date on which the petitioner was appointed, Lohar caste was not included in the Nomadic Tribes, by a resolution of the Government, dated 01.03.2006, 'Lohar' was included in the Nomadic Tribes and the petitioner's claim of belonging to Nomadic Tribes was validated by the scrutiny committee. It is stated that though the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Nomadic Tribes may not be true on the date of her appointment, in view of the subsequent development, the appointment of the petitioner was required to be protected. The learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the circumstances of the case and the appointment of the petitioner should be protected.

Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, supported the order of the tribunal as also the order of the termination of services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the appointment by falsely claiming that she belongs to the Nomadic Tribes though at the relevant time in the year 2003, Lohar caste was included in the Other Backward Classes and not in the Nomadic Tribes. It is stated that if this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, the petitioner may not be held to be entitled to any back wages or any other monetary benefits that would flow from the order of her reinstatement.

3

In our view, in the circumstances of the case, as rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner, by taking a lenient view, the services of the petitioner need to be protected. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed in the year 2003, Lohar caste was included in the other backward classes and it was, therefore, not proper on the part of the petitioner to claim the appointment on a post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes, when the caste to which she claimed to belong was included in the other backward classes. Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the Nomadic Tribes and by the Government Resolution, dated 01.03.2006, Lohar caste was included in the NT(B) category. The scrutiny committee has validated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Nomadic Tribes. The scrutiny committee has held that the petitioner belongs to Lohar caste that is included in the Nomadic Tribes. If that is so, the services of the petitioner need to be protected though initially, the petitioner had not properly claimed her appointment on the post, which was reserved for the Nomadic Tribes. Since the petitioner was appointed only on the post of a Ward Attendant, it would be necessary in the circumstances of the case, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service but, without any back wages or any other monetary benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement.

4

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. The original application filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Ward Attendant with continuity in service within three weeks. Though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period during which she was out of service. The petitioner would also not be entitled to the other monetary benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

APTE

5