Bombay High Court · 2025-01-23
MANGESH GIRISH SARJERAO vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/12331/2022
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- MANGESH GIRISH SARJERAO
- Respondent
- THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12331 OF 2022 Mangesh Girish Sarjerao Major of age, Occ. Service R/o Maharashtra Housing Board L-27/105 Yerwada Pune … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee Pune Division Pune. 3. The Jt. Director Technical Education 412-E, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-16 4. The Principal Govt. College of Engineering and Research At Post Avsari (Kh) Tq. Ambegaon Dist. Pune … Respondents ... Adv. Anandsingh Bayas for the Petitioner. Adv. Pooja Joshi Deshpande for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. … CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE J.) 1. Heard. Harish 1 of 11 Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt 2. The Respondent No. 2 by its decision dated 22.08.2022, has invalidated the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe Category (“impugned order”). 3. Factual Matrix :- (a) On 29.10.2021, the Petitioner was granted Caste Certificate in Form ‘C’, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mhada. (b) Petitioner secured employment as a Machinist in the Government College of Engineering and Research. Petitioner was issued Appointment order on 11.06.2012. (c) The Respondent No. 5, by its letter dated 13.09.2012, referred the Tribe claim of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. (d) The Respondent No. 2, after a lapse of more than 10 years, by the impugned order, invalidated the Tribe claim of the Petitioner. Grounds on which the Respondent No. 2 has invalidated the Tribe claim of the Petitioner are as