Bombay High Court
MAMTA RAJU GOPANWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court quashed the Collector's notice and ordered a stay on any adverse action pending the Scrutiny Committee's decision.
Summary
Mamta Raju Gopanwar was appointed as a Talathi in Satara district on 11 January 2022 to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Although she claimed ST status in 2010, she failed to produce a certificate and submitted a fresh proposal to the Scrutiny Committee on 7 January 2023. On 9 September 2026 the Collector issued a notice seeking reasons for not terminating her services on the ground of non‑production of the certificate for four years and eight months. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice. The Court quashed the Collector's notice, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the proposal within four months, and ordered that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner during that period or until the validation is decided. The petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector's notice terminating the petitioner’s services for failure to furnish a Scheduled Tribe certificate is valid pending the pending scrutiny of her claim.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of any adverse administrative action until the Scrutiny Committee decides on her proposal.
Subjects
- Reservation
- Scheduled Tribe
- Service termination
- Administrative law
- Writ petition
- Stay order
- Scrutiny Committee
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42622-DB
(1) wp12482.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 WRIT PETITION NO. 12482 OF 2026
MAMTA RAJU GOPANWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the respondent-State.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 16.09.2026
PC :-
01. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP
for the respondent-State. Looking to the limited grievance involved in
the petition, this petition is taken up for final disposal by the consent of
the parties.
02. The petitioner came to be appointed as Talathi with
respondent No.3 on 11.01.2022 against a post reserved for person
belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Her claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe
was already made in 2010, when she was a student. However, no details
of the same are given in the petition. The petitioner, however, on
07.01.2023 submitted fresh proposal with respondent No.2 – Scrutiny
Committee. Now, the Collector has issued notice dated 09.09.2026
(2) wp12482.26
asking the petitioner as to why her services be not terminated, since she
has failed to furnish certificate for four years and eight months. The
petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.
03. Considering the fact that the proposal is already pending and
in the meantime a notice is issued, this Court deems it fit to dispose off
this petition with following directions.
04. Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee to decide proposal of
the petitioner within four months from today. The notice dated
09.09.2026 issued by the Collector, Satara stands quashed and set aside.
The petitioner to cooperate in the proceeding before the respondent No.
2 – Scrutiny Committee. Till next four months or till the validation
proceeding is decided by respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee,
whichever is earlier, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner.
05. With the above, this writ petition stands disposed off.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2026/Sep26/wp12482.26
Checking your session…