Bombay High Court
VISHAL RAGHUNATH SONUNEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY TIRBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The notice demanding the tribal validity certificate is quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is protected from adverse action for six months or until his tribal claim is decided, whichever is earlier.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Raghunath Sonune, challenged a notice issued by his employer (Respondent No.3) demanding production of a tribal validity certificate, alleging that his appointment was to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. He argued that his claim for tribal status had already been forwarded to the concerned committee (Respondent No.2) and was pending since 10 July 2026, and that he could not control the speed of its decision. The petitioner faced the threat of termination based on the notice dated 12 August 2026. The Court directed the committee to decide the tribal claim within six months and ordered that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for six months or until the claim is decided, whichever is earlier. Consequently, the notice dated 12 August 2026 was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice demanding the petitioner produce a tribal validity certificate can be set aside.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from termination pending the decision of his tribal status claim.
- Whether the committee must decide the tribal claim within a specified time frame.
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe reservation
- tribal validity certificate
- writ petition
- termination
- administrative law
- employment
- reservation
Judgment
(1) 925-WP-10648-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 WRIT PETITION NO. 10648 OF 2026
Vishal Raghunath Sonune
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Tirbal Development
Department And Others
...
Mr. Deepak D. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Saie S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent-State.
None for respondent No.3.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 20th AUGUST 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard Mr. Choudhari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and
Ms. Joshi, the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Looking to the
nature of the petition, we find that no notice is required to Respondent
No.3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.3 has issued
notice dated 12/08/2026 to the petitioner, directing him to produce
tribe validity certificate, as the petitioner is appointed against the post
reserved for person belonging to scheduled tribe category.
(2) 925-WP-10648-2026
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the proposal is
already forwarded to the Respondent/Committee and the same is
pending since 10/07/2026. He submits that it is not within the control
of petitioner to get the claim decided expeditiously. On the other hand,
the petitioner is facing threat of termination at the hands of Respondent
No.3/Employer in view of notice dated 12/08/2026.
4. Considering above, this Court finds that the petition can be
disposed off with following directions:
(i) Respondent No.2/Committee to decide the tribe claim of the
petitioner within a period of six months from today.
(ii) No adverse action be taken against the petitioner by
Respondent No.3 for a period of six month or till the claim is
decided, whichever is earlier.
(iii) In view of above, notice dated 12/08/2026 issued by
Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside.
5. With these, writ petition stands disposed off.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE
Checking your session…