Bombay High Court
SWAPNIL ANIL BALWANTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The protection granted by sub‑section (5) of Section 10 shields a government employee from termination for 30 days after the Appellate Authority’s decision, rendering the petition unnecessary.
Summary
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged a court order that declared his caste claim invalid, fearing termination because he was appointed to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The order was issued after the appointment of an Appellate Authority under Section 6B of the Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 2026. The Court examined sub‑section (5) of Section 10, which provides a statutory protection of 30 days to a person in service after the Appellate Authority’s decision, irrespective of any appeal period. Although the impugned order did not mention this protection, the Court held that the statutory shield automatically applies, eliminating any real apprehension of dismissal. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s apprehension of termination is tenable despite the order invalidating his caste claim.
- Whether the protection under sub‑section (5) of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act applies notwithstanding its omission in the impugned order.
- Whether the petitioner must first approach the Appellate Authority before seeking relief from the High Court.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 2026 — s. 10, 6B
Subjects
- caste claim
- Scheduled Tribe reservation
- service protection
- Appellate Authority
- termination of employment
- Section 10 protection
- High Court writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42663-DB
11-WP.12370.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
11 WRIT PETITION NO. 12370 OF 2026
Swapnil Anil Balwant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Sub Divisional Magistrate And Ors
...
Ms. Manjiri A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for
the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged an order holding the
petitioner’s caste claim to be invalid. The petitioner is in service with
respondent no.3. The apprehension now expressed is that, in view of
invalidation of the caste claim, respondent no.3 would terminate the
services of the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed against a
post reserved for a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The
impugned judgment and order is dated 24.08.2026, i.e. after the
appointment of Appellate Authority under Section 6B Maharashtra
Act No.XXXVIII of 2026. This Court finds that the apprehension is
Sayyed 1/2
11-WP.12370.2026.doc
misplaced in view of sub-section (5) of Section 10, which provides
protection to a person in service for a period of 30 days, after the
decision of the Appellate Authority and even if no appeal is provided
for 30 days after the limitation is over i.e. 90 days plus 30 days.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, submits that
this protection is not mentioned in the order and on the contrary
there is a stipulation directing respondent no.3 to take action. Be that
as it may, once the statute grants such protection, there is no question
of having any apprehension in the mind of petitioner.
4. On this itself, petition can be disposed of conveniently by
directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. Needless
to say, the protection shall continue till the appeal is decided and 30
days thereafter.
5. Petition stands disposed off.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 2/2
Checking your session…