Bombay High Court

BALAJI SHIVRAM PADGIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petitions are dismissed because the petitioners are protected under Section 10(4)(5) and no notice to the Zilla Parishad is required.

Summary

The petitioners, government servants of a medical college in Nanded and a Zilla Parishad employee in Beed, filed writ petitions challenging orders of a Scrutiny Committee that cancelled their caste/tribe certificates. They sought relief fearing adverse action by their employers. The Court held that, under the amendment to Section 10(4)(5) of the relevant Maharashtra reservation Act, persons whose certificates are cancelled are protected from withdrawal of benefits for a period of thirty days after the appellate authority’s decision or lapse of appeal period. Consequently, no notice to the Zilla Parishad was required and the petitions were deemed invalid. The Court directed that the petitioners may only challenge the order by filing an appeal before the designated appellate authority. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the amendment to Section 10(4)(5) of the applicable Act
Whether notice to the Zilla Parishad is required before proceeding against the petitioners
Whether the petitioners are protected from adverse employment action pending appeal

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation) Act — s. 10(4)(5)

Subjects

writ petition
reservation
caste certificate cancellation
Scrutiny Committee
appellate authority
Maharashtra
government servant

Judgment

                                 (1)                 907-WP-11678-2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               907 WRIT PETITION NO. 11678 OF 2026

                     Ganesh Linguram Padgilwar
                              VERSUS
        The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
                               AND
              910 WRIT PETITION NO. 11681 OF 2026
                        Balaji Shivram Padgi
                               VERSUS
        The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
                                AND
              911 WRIT PETITION NO. 11683 OF 2026

                       Laxman Shivram Padgi
                             VERSUS
        The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
                               AND
              914 WRIT PETITION NO. 11686 OF 2026
                           Limbaji Rajenna Padgi
                                  VERSUS
          The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
                                     ...
Mr. Manish L. Paithane a/w Ms. Prajakta Misal a/w Ms. Vaishnavi
Kulkarni h/f Mr. Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, Mr. K. N. Lokhande and Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar AGP
for Respondent-State in respective WP.

                               CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                          JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                               DATE     : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.
                                       (2)                   907-WP-11678-2026




PC :-

1.      Heard Mr. Paithane h/f Mr. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. Lakhotiya, the learned AGP for Respondent/State.

Considering legal position, no notice is required to Respondent/Zilla

Parishad.


2.      The claims of all these petitioners are held to be invalid by a

common judgment and order dated 17/08/2026 passed by the

Respondent No.2/committee. The petitioners in WP/11678/2026,

WP/11681/2026 and WP/11683/2026 are the Government Servants

working with Respondent No.4/Medical College, Nanded and petitioner

in WP/11686/2026 is working with Zilla Parishad, Beed. All these

petitioners apprehending action at the hands of the employers in view of

the orders passed by the Committee. However, by now, in view of

amendment, the protection is given to the persons in service on

invalidation of their caste/tribe claim as per provisions of Section 10(4)

(5), which reads as under:

             “(5). After certificate has been cancelled and confiscated by
             the Scrutiny Committee, the concerned Appointing Authority,
             Local Authority, Government Educational Institution, Statutory
                                              (3)                      907-WP-11678-2026



                  Body or Agency shall take action for withdrawal of benefits
                  given to such person,-
                         (a)      within thirty days from the date of order of the
                         Appellate Authority if appeal is filed, and it is rejected by
                         the Appellate Authority;
                         (b)      within thirty days from the lapse of appeal period
                         specified in sub-section (1) of section 6B, if appeal is not
                         filed.”;


3.           Considering above, they are already protected. In view of this

clarification, the petition stands disposed off in view of fact that now the

appellate authority is designated under the said Act.


4.           It is open for the petitioners to challenge the order by filing an

Appeal before the respective Appellate Authority.


5.           With these, writ petitions stand disposed off.




     [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                                [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…