B.P. Dharmadhikari, J@mdashHeard Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner so also Shri Anup Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner after his superannuation filed the present writ petition challenging judgment and order, delivered by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, on 25.3.1998, in Transfer Application No. 5 of 1996. That transfer application was earlier Writ Petition No. 1474 of 1984 before this Court.
3. The purpose of filing that petition or the present writ petition is to seek a deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Divisional Forests Officer.
4. The petitioner obtained a Caste Certificate, which revealed that he belonged to "Koshti-Halba" (Scheduled Tribe), on 10.4.1978. On the basis of that Caste Certificate, he was promoted as "Assistant Conservator of Forests" on 10.10.1979. On 10.4.1984, a person below him, came to be promoted as "Divisional Forests Officer". The petitioner got that promotion later on. He, therefore, sought 10.4.1984 as deemed date in the cadre of the "Divisional Forests Officer".
5. Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in Writ Petition No. 1474 of 1984 or Transfer Application No. 5 of 1986 the only reason disclosed by the employer was verification of the caste claim. He submits that the caste claim was forwarded, according to the employer, before promotion itself and even when The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur decided the matter on 25.3.1998, according to the employer, the said caste claim was pending with the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Because of this delay and doubt in his mind, the petitioner had filed a separate application before The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur calling upon the employer to produce necessary documents to show forwarding of caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Those documents were never produced by the employer.
6. In this situation, Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the direction given by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur to respondent No. 2, to send all papers of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for its verification and for early decision in the matter, is unsustainable. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner could not have been and cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part.
7. Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, also states that for the first time before this Court, while filing reply on 21.7.2000, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came up with documents dated 11.7.1984 and 17.8.1984, which show that the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected/invalidated by the Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. These communications are not the orders passed by the said Authority invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had no reason or cause to assail the same at any point of time. However, learned counsel submits that these communications were also suppressed for over a period of ten years and were produced before this Court, for the first time, in July, 2000. It is in this background that learned counsel prays for grant of deemed date i.e. 10.4.1984 in the cadre of "Divisional Forests Officer".
8. Shri Anup Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents, relies upon impugned order passed by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, reply before that Tribunal, as also reply to the present writ petition filed, to oppose admission. According to learned counsel, when respondents got knowledge of communications dated 11.7.1984 and 17.8.1984, the same were produced before this Court. He states that, in reply, the respondents have pointed out that, apart from these communications, the order or report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not received, by them. As such, in absence of challenge to invalidation, prayers made in the petition cannot be granted.
9. Shri Anup Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents, also invites our attention to order, passed by this Court on 16.10.2000 to show that the caste claim of the real brother of the petitioner was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He submits that in this situation, no case is made out warranting interference.
10. During hearing, the Court had asked the petitioner to point out whether any of his blood relatives has been given Caste Validity Certificate. The petitioner could not point out any such validation of caste claim. The invalidation of the caste claim of the real brother of the petitioner has been pointed out to this Court by the respondents. In view of this development, we had adjourned the matter to second half to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions on the caste claim of the brother of the petitioner viz. Shri M.T. Lalmunde. In second half, the petitioner and his Counsel have filed a Pursis placing with it a photocopy of certified copy of memo of Writ Petition No. 437 of 1985 filed by said brother. The judgment passed by this Court, in the said writ petition, on 22.3.1991, is also produced. The Division Bench, on 22.3.1991, has made Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in the writ petition i.e. the adverse report of the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development at Nagpur was set aside. There was an express prayer to declare that the said brother belonged to "Scheduled Tribe" and was entitled to the benefits flowing from that status vide prayer clause (c), the same was not granted. This Court, however, after perusal of various Government Resolutions occupying the field observed that the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, may remit the record to the Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny having jurisdiction into the matter. It also adopted a view taken in judgment dated 7.11.1985 while deciding Writ Petition Nos. 569 and 570 of 1985 that the enquiry into claim made by the claimants for Caste Certificate after coming into of Government Resolution dated 23.1.1985 should be as per the procedure laid down in that Government Resolution, irrespective of whether or not claim was made during the operation of Government Resolution of 1980 or not. It is, therefore, clear that the claim of the brother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 437 of 1985 was remitted back for its due consideration to the competent Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to disclose the date of the said enquiry. Upon instructions, he submits that, as the petitioner is not on talking terms with his brother, the date is not known to him. We find the answer insufficient.
11. The petitioner, who could produce copies of writ petitions, judgment, and order with a Pursis, could have very well pointed out to this Court the date of the claim. The petitioner could have also disclosed to this Court whether any of his children or other blood relatives have secured such validity of caste or benefits.
12. The facts show that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated sometime in July or August, 1984. The petitioner got knowledge of this invalidation of caste in the year 2000. The Writ petition being disposed of by us today, was very much pending when the petitioner got that knowledge. He has not raised any challenge to Communications dated 11.7.1984 or 17.8.1984. He did not join the said Authority deciding his caste claim as party respondents and no prayers in that connection are before us for consideration.
13. Thus, the caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated in the year 1984 itself. The petitioner has not challenged it. The petitioner is not in a position to point out what happened to the caste claim of his brother remitted back by this Court, by its judgment dated 22.3.2011, and disclose the status of his blood relatives.
14. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur had, as per the records made available to it, directed expeditious disposal of the caste claim. When the petitioner learnt that the caste claim was already disposed of or was going to be disposed of, it was open to him to raise appropriate challenges and make appropriate prayers. That has also not been done.
15. In this situation, we are unable to intervene in the matter in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
